ee ee nee Cn 


ee ete 





DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 








se Teeter, kN ae Name Rea oe I ED “a 











Ce | 
§uternational Critical Commentary 


on the Bolp Scriptures of the Gio and | 
} Rew Testaments 


UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF 


THE Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Lrrr. © 


Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York; 


THE REv. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt. 
Regius Professor of Tebrew, Oxford; 


THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D. 
Master of University College, Durham. 











The Iniernational Crifical Commentary 
on the foln Scriptures of the Old and 


New Gestaments. 


EDITORS PREFACE. 





THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
homiletical character. Zhe Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
The Expositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
speciai place and importance. But they do not enter into 
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Hfandbuch zum A. T.; De Wette’s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
mentar ; Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblischer Commentar iiber das 
A.T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiietisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s 
Elandkommentar zum A. T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar 
NV. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
eaking public; others are in process of translation. But 
corresponding series by British or American divines 
has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 

ightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has 
come, in the judgment uf the projectors of this enterprise, 
wihen it is practicavle to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 

{ 
| 


f 






EDITORS’ PREFACE 


Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar. 
ship, and in a measure lead its van. 

Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs, 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, D.D., in America, 
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, 
in Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
vr summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct fron 
matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- 
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Booljs 
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introduction 
with critical notices of the most important literature of 
the subject. Historical and Archzological questions, 4s 
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homileti 
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series, 


TRE INTERNATIONAL GRITIGAL COMMENTARY 


THE following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the 
Volumes named below: 


Genesis 


Exodus 
Leviticus 
aeabect 
Deuteronomy 


Joshua 
Judges 


Samuel 


Kings 


Chronicles 


Ezra and 
Nehemiah 


Psalms 
Proverbs - 


Job 





THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


The Rev. JoHN SKINNER, D.D., Professor of Old 
Testament Language and Literature, College or 
Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge 
England. 

The Rev. A. R. S. KEnneEpy, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 

J. F. StenninG, M. A., Fellow of Wadham Coi- 
lege, Oxford, 

G. BucHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. GEorGE ADAm Situ, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, 
Glasgow. 

The Rev. GrorGE Moore, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of Theology, Harvard University, Cam- 
bridge, Mass. [Wow Ready. 

The Rev. H. P. Smitu, D.D., Professor of Biblical 
History, Amherst College, Mass. [Vow Ready. 

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 

The Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 

The Rev. L. W. BaTtren, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of 
St. Marks Church, New York City, sometime 
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
Philadelphia. 

The Rev. Cuas. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Pro- 


fessor of Theological Encyclopzedia and Symboi 
ics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


[Vol. I Now Ready, Vol. If in Press. 
The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 


Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
[Now Ready. 


The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 


en 


The Infernationaf Critica? Commentary. 


Isaiah Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BucHANAN 
Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield 
College, Oxford. 





Isaiah Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., 
D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
Jeremiah The Rev. A. F. Kirxpatrick, D.D., Master of 


Selwyn College, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 
Cambridge, England. 


Ezekiel By the Rev. G. A. Cooks, M.A., Fellow Mag- 
dalen College, andthe Rev. CHARLES F. BURNEY, 
M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. Johns 
College, Oxford. 


Daniel The Rev. JoHN P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., some- 
time Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity Schooi, 
Philadelphia, now Rector of St, Michael’s Church, 
New York City. 


Amos and Hosea W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the 
University of Chicago, Illinois, [Vow Ready. 


Micah to Haggai Prof. Joun P. SmitTuH, University of Chicago; 
Prof. CHARLES P. FaAGNANI, D.D., Union Theo- 
logical Seminary, New York ; W. Haves Warp, 
D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New 
York; Prof. Juttus A. BEvER, Union Theolog- 
ical Seminary, New York, and Prof. H G. 
MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University. 


Zechariah to Jonah Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D.; Prof. JoHn P. SMirH 
and Prof. J. A. BEVER. 


Esther The Rev. L. B. Patron, Ph.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Hartford Theological Seminary. 
Ecclesiastes Prof. Gzorcr A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of 
Biblical Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. 
Ruth, ‘Rev. Cuarves A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Profes- 
Song of Songs sor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolies, 


and Lamentations Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


AD) hs THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
St. Matthew The Rev. WILLouGHBYy C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow 


of Exeter College, Oxford. 
St. Mark The late Rev. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime Pro- 
fessor of New Testament Literature, P. E. Divinity 
School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready. 
St. Luke The Rev. ALFRED PLumMER, D.D., sometime 


Master of University College, Durham. 
[Vow Ready. 


The Jnternationar Critica? Commentary. 





St. John 


Harmony of the 
Gospels 


Acts 


Romans 


Corinthians 


Galatians 


Ephesians and 
Colossians 


Philippians and 
Philemon 


Thessalonians 


The Pastoral 
Epistles 


Hebrews 


St. James 


Peter and Jude 


The Epistles of 
St. John 


Revelation 


The Very Rev. Joun HENRY BERNARD, D.D., 
Dean of St. Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, 
University of Dublin. 


The Rev. WiLit1Am Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the 
Rev. WILLouGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford. 


The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Mag- 

dalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, 

A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of 
London, 


The Rev. WitttAm Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. 
Heapiam, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings Col- 
lege, London. [Vow Ready. 


The Right Rev. ARCH. ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., 
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the Rev. RICHARD J. 
KNOWLING, D.D., Professor of Divinity, Uni- 
versity of Durham. 


The Rev. Erngst D. Burton, D.D., Professor of 
New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 


The Rev. T. K. Aszott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime 
Professor ‘of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, 
Dublin, now Librarian of thesame. [Vow Ready. 


The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, D.D., Professor 
of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Semi- 
nary, New York City. [Wow Ready. 


The Rev. James E. FRAME, M.A., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 


The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble 
College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 


The Rev. A. NaIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew 
in Kings College, London. 


The Rev. JAMEs H. Ropss, D.D., Bussey Professor 
of New Testament Criticism in Harvard Uni- 
versity. 


The Rev. CHARLES Bice, D.D., Regius Professor 
of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ 
Church, Oxford. [Now Ready. 


The Rev. E. A. Brooke, A.M., Fellow of Kings 
College, Cambridge. 


The Rev. Ropert H. CHar es, M.A., D.D., Pro- 
Se of Biblical Greek in the University of 
Dublin. 


reo PH 


‘J ¢ 
Mey seats hy yng 


hearst, ESS 
. an Ay ee 


Ww 





fae EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


Rev. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D. 
AND 


Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, B. D. 


ae 





THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 


A. 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


BY THE 


Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D. 


LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND 
CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD 


AND THE 


Rev. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, B.D. 


FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD 


ELEVENTH EDITION 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1906 


ART ACO prone : 


OO ee ee eee 


|) et a 1S : aT Tit Ty yy 
AMO BOF M, 


ut 32 





4 *. ee et. AE # or «vy e 
G37 Po See a F< Fil aka s f. * 


iP a 3a a 28k. 
’ 
ry of Te ee ee 
ko on ae ee te 
. 
. 
to ee ee © ener 
° a4 £ 


BRL) 2 11 ee 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION 





WE are indebted to the keen sight and disinterested care 
of friends for many small corrections. We desire to thank 
especially Professor Lock, Mr. C. H. Turner, the Revs. F. 
E. Brightman, and R. B. Rackham. We have also, where 
necessary, inserted references to the edition of 4 Ezra, by 
the late Mr. Bensly, published in Texts and Studies, iii. 2. 
No more extensive recasting of the Commentary has been 
attempted. 


Was: 
ASC 
Oxrorp, Lent, 1896. 


472849 


AV 


My te 





PREFACE 





THE commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 
which already exist in English, unlike those on some other 
Books of the New Testament, are so good and so varied 
that to add to their number may well seem superfluous. 
Fortunately for the present editors the responsibility for 
attempting this does not rest with them. In a series of 
commentaries on the New Testament it was impossible 
that the Epistle to the Romans should not be included 
and should not hold a prominent place. There are few 
books which it is more difficult to exhaust and few in 
regard to which there is more to be gained ‘from renewed 
interpretation by different minds working under different 
conditions. If it is a historical fact that the spiritual 
revivals of Christendom have been usually associated with 
closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent 
degree of the Epistle to the Romans. The editors are 
under no illusion as to the value of their own special con- 
tribution, and they will be well content that it should find 
its proper level and be assimilated or left behind as it 
deserves. 

Perhaps the nearest approach to anything at all dis- 
tinctive in the present edition would be (1) the distribution 
of the subject-matter of the commentary, (2) the attempt 
to furnish an interpretation of the Epistle which might be 
described as historical. 

Some experience in teaching has shown that if a difficult 





472843 


vi PREFACE 


Epistle like the Romans is really to be understood and 
grasped at once as a whole and in its parts, the argument 
should be presented in several different ways and on several 
different scales at the same time. And it is an advantage 
when the matter of a commentary can be so broken up that 
by means of headlines, headings to sections, summaries, 
paraphrases, and large and small print notes, the reader 
may not either lose the main thread of the argument in the 
crowd of details, or slur over details in seeking to obtain 
a general idea. While we are upon this subject, we may 
explain that the principle which has guided the choice of 
large and small print for the notes and longer discussions 
is not exactly that of greater or less importance, but rather 
that of greater or less directness of bearing upon the 
exegesis of the text. This principle may not be carried 
out with perfect uniformity: it was an experiment the 
effect of which could not always be judged until the 
commentary was in print; but when once the type was 
set the possibility of improvement was hardly worth the 
_trouble and expense of resetting. | 
The other main object at which we have aimed is that 
of making our exposition of the Epistle historical, that is 
‘of assigning to it its true position in place and time—on 
the one hand in reiation to contemporary Jewish thought, 
and on the other hand in relation to the growing body of 
Christian teaching. We have endeavoured always to bear 
in mind not only the Jewish education and training of the 
writer, which must clearly have given him the framework 
of thought and language in which his ideas are cast, but 
also the position of the Epistle in Christian literature. It 
(was written when a large part of the phraseology of the 
_ newly created body was still fluid, when a number of words 
chad not yet come to have a fixed meaning, when their 
origin and associations—to us obscure—were still fresh 
.and vivid. The problem which a commentator ought to 
propose to himself in the first instance is not what answer 


PREFACE vil 


does the Epistle give to questions which are occupying 
men’s minds now, or which have occupied them in any 
past period of Church history, but what were the questions 
of the time at which the Epistle was written and what 
meaning did his words and thoughts convey to the writer 
himself. 

It is in the pursuit of this original meaning that we have 
drawn illustrations somewhat freely from Jewish writings, 
both from the Apocryphal literature which is mainly the 
product of the period between Ico B.C. and 100 A.D., and 
(although less fully) from later Jewish literature. In the 
former direction we have been much assisted by the 
attention which has been bestowed in recent years on 
these writings, particularly by the excellent editions of the 
Psalms of Solomon and of the Book of Enoch. It is by 
a continuous and careful study of such works that any 
advance in the exegesis of the New Testament will be 
possible. For the later Jewish literature and the teaching 
of the Rabbis we have found ourselves in a position of 
greater difficulty. A first-hand acquaintance with this 
literature we do not possess, nor would it be easy for most 
stulents of the New Testament to acquire it. Moreover 
complete agreement among the specialists on the subject 
does not as yet exist, and a perfectly trustworthy standard 
of criticism seems to be wanting. We cannot therefore feel 
altogether confident of our ground. At the same time we 
have used such material as was at our disposal, and cer- 
tainly to ourselves it has been of great assistance, partly as 
suggesting the common origin of systems of thought which 
have developed very differently, partly by the striking 
contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching. 

Our object is historical and not dogmatic. . Dogmaties 
are indeed excluded by the plan of this series of commen- 
taries, but they are excluded also by the conception which 
we have formed for ourselves of our duty as commentatofs. 
We have sought before all things to understand St. Paul, 





CONTENTS 


—— 


INTRODUCTION matte Sete er «, . |) |) ECU 
Opie ROME IMASD SS. 6) cs + a ew, ey Cm He 
2. The Jews in Rome Se ee fiselcr a, (age ee KE 
3. The Roman Church... Sabina ote 5 noth or, RK 
4 Time and Place, Occasion and Purpose .« .  XXXVi 
§. Argument . e ° . e > . e xiliv 
6. Language and Style ah eal heed Bere |... \ebaner: plik 
Pee ee a ates ye we se ee Ban 
S. Literary Biseky <) we se =|, a ixxiv 
9. Integrity : sit ree > la - att iiey) | eet XXX 
Io. Commentaries e e e e e 2 ° .XCViii 


ABBREVIATIONS - ° e ° e ° - 2 ex-cxii 


SPMESUACW Sn. whet: as. 2 es EG 


DETACHED NOTES: 
The Theological Terminology of Rom. i. 1-7 fae eS a7 


The word dixatos and its cognates : some 28 
The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in some 
Jewish Writings . . eats ° . : a) 31 
The Righteousness of God . 2. «. . se 
St. Paul’s Description of the Condition of me Heathen 
World . - . : - - . » 49 


Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter i Ewe on | micunen » hep DE 
The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice . - o#'GE 
The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by 


St. James . : . ° ° ° - 102 
Jewish Teaching on Gieaieion ° ° ° 108 
The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of 

St. Paul Slt 116 


Is the Society or the Tectasieal ik proper eieect of 
Justification ? ° e ° ° e ° ° « i232 


xii 


CONTENTS 


The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement . . eo «¢ 
The Effects of Adam’s Fall in Jewish Theology . . e« 
St. Paul’s Conception of Sinandofthe Fall. . . . 


History of the maa of the Pauline doctrine of 
Stxaiwois sw ° . ° 


The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ > ae 
The Inward Conflict . : ole) ens 
St. Paul’s View of the Law . de G te ° | top oe 
The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit . . . «. 
The Renovation of Nature . : = ° e ° ° 
The Privileges of Israel. ° ° ° . ° 
The Punctuation of Rom. ix.§ . . ° o: Wie ° 
The Divine Election . “ ° ° . . ° 
The Divine Sovereignty in ae Old Testament . e ° 
The Power and Rights of God as Creator . - . ° 


The Relation of St. Paul’s mpeg in ae ix to the Book 
of Wisdom . : o aes 


A History of the inteiaretation of Rot ix. Gage ee 
The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21 : Human Responsibility ° 
St. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament . «Re oy) ite 
The Doctrine ofthe Remnant _. .« «© |)ss=nene 
The Merits of the Fathers . . «© (© an 
The Argument of Romans ix-xi . . .« .« . e 
St. Paul’s Philosophy of History . ° ° oe ° 


The Salvation of the Individual: Free-Will and Predesti- 
nation . 5 = . : * : ° e ° 


Spiritual Gifts . . ° e e ° . e ° 
The Church and the Civil Power . = e e - ° 


The History of the word dyamn « «© © © © e- 


The Christian Teaching on Love . ° . . e Of 
The early Christian belief in the nearness of the mapovgia . 


~The relation of Chapters xii-xiv tothe Gospels . . 


What sect or party is referzed toin Rom. xiv? . . e 
Aquila and'Priscilla . «oe = = \euuMu 


INDEX: 


I Subjects e e . ° e e e . 
II Latin Words . e . e e ° e e 
III Greek Words e ° e e e e e ° 


INTRODUCTION 


§ 1. ROME IN A.D. 58. 


Ir was during the winter 57-58, or early in the spring of the 
year 58, according to almost all calculations, that St. Paul wrote 
his Epistle to the Romans, and that we thus obtain the first trust- 

worthy information about the Roman Church. Even if there be 
some slight error in the calculations, it is in any case impossible 
that this date can be far wrong, and the Epistle must certainly 
have been written during the early years of Nero’s reign. It would 
be unwise to attempt a full account either of the city or the empire 
at this date, but for the illustration of the Epistle and for the 
comprehension of St. Paul’s own mind, a brief reference to a few 
leading features in the history of each is necessary '. 

For. certainly St. Paul was influenced by the name of Rome. In 
Rome, great as it is, and to Romans, he wishes to preach the 
Gospel: he prays for a prosperous journey that by the will of God 
he may come unto them: he longs to see them: the universality 
of the Gospel makes him desire to preach it in the universal city ?. 
And the impression which we gain from the Epistle to the 
Romans is supported by our other sources of information. The 
desire to visit Rome dominates the close of the Acts of the 
Apostles: ‘After I have been there, I must also see Rome.’ ‘As 
thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness 
also at Rome’.’ The imagery of citizenship has impressed itself 
upon his language*. And this was the result both of his experience 
and of his birth. Wherever Christianity had been preached the 
Roman authorities had appeared as the power which restrained 


4 The main authorities used for this section are Furneaux, 7he Annals of 
Tacttus, vol. ii, and Schiller, Geschichte des Rémischen Kaisserretchs umtet 
der Regierung des Nero. 

3 Rom. i. 8-15. 

® Acts xix. al; are II. 

* Phil. i. 27; iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19; Acts xxiii. s. 


xiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§1. 


the forces of evil opposed to it". The worst persecution of the 
Christians had been while Judaea was under the rule of a native 
prince. Everywhere the Jews had stirred up persecutions, and 
the imperial officials had interfered and protected the Apostle. 
And so both in this Epistle and throughout his life St. Paul 
emphasizes the duty of obedience to the civil government, and the 
necessity of fulfilling our obligations to it. But also St. Paul was 
himself a Roman citizen... This privilege, not then so common as 
it became later, would naturally broaden the view and impress the 
imagination of a provincial; and it is significant that the first clear 
conception of the universal character inherent in Christianity, the 
first bold step to carry it out, and the capacity to realize the import- 


on the mind of St. Paul,’ writes Mr. Ramsay, ‘ we feel compelled 
to suppose that St. Paul had conceived the great idea of Christianity 
as the religion of the Roman world; and that he thought of the 
various districts and countries in which he had preached as parts of 
the grand unity. He had the mind of an organizer; and to him 
the Christians of his earliest travels were not men of Iconium and 
of Antioch—they were a part of the Roman world, and were 
addressed by him as such*.’ 

It: was during the early years of Nero’s reign that St. Paul first 
came into contact with the Roman Church. And the period is _ 
significant. It was what later times called the Quimguennium of 
Nero, and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since 
the death of Augustus*. Nor was the judgement unfounded. It is 


13 Thess. ii. 7 5 waréxov, 6 7d xaréxyov. It is well known that the 
commonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman 
Empire (see the Catena of passages in Alford, iii. p. 56 ff.), and this accords 
most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written (¢. 53 A.D.). The 
only argument of any value for a later date and the unauthentie character of 
the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (ii. 1-12) is the attempt to 
explain this passage of the return of Nero, but such an interpretation is quite 
unnecessary, and does not particularly suit the words. St. Paul’s experience 
had tanght him that there were lying restrained and checked great forces of 
evil which might at any time burst out, and this he calls the ‘mystery of 
iniquity,’ and describes in the language of the O.T. prophets. But everywhere 
the power of the civil government, as embodied in the Roman Empire (7d 
waréxov) and visibly personified in the Emperor (6 xaréxov), restrained these 
forces. Such an interpretation, either of the eschatological passages of the 
Epistle or of the Apocalypse, does not destroy their deeper spiritual meaning ; 
for the writers of the New Testament, as the prophets of the Old, reveal to us 
and generalize the spiritual forces of good and evil which underlie the surface 
of society. 

® Ramsay, 7he Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 147, 148; cf. also pp. 60, 
yo, 158n. See also Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 202-205. 

8 Aur. Victor, Caes. 5, Epit. 12, Unde quidam prodidere, Traianum solitum 
dicers, procel distare cunctos principes a Neronis guinguennio. ‘The expression 


$1] ROME IN A.D. 58 xv 


probable that even the worst excesses of Nero, like the worst cruelty 
of Tiberius, did little harm to the mass of the people even in Rome ; 
and many even of the faults of the Emperors assisted in working 
out the new ideas which the Empire was creating. But at present 
we have not to do with faults. Members of court circles might 
have unpleasant and exaggerated stories to tell about the death of 
Britannicus; tales might have been circulated of hardly pardon- 
able excesses committed by the Emperor and a noisy band of 
companions wandering at night in the streets; the more respect- 
able of the Roman aristocracy would consider an illicit union 
with a freedwoman and a taste for music, literature, and the drama, 
signs of degradation, but neither in Rome nor in the provinces 
would the populace be offended ; more far-seeing observers might 
be able to detect worse signs, but if any ordinary citizen, or 
if any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned, he 
would certainly have answered that the government of the Empire 
was good. This was due mainly to the gradual development of 
the ideas on which the Empire had been founded. The structure 
which had been sketched by the genius of Caesar, and built up 
by the art of Augustus, if allowed to develop freely, guaranteed 
naturally certain conditions of progress and good fortune. It was 
due also to the wise administration of Seneca and of Burrus. It 
was due apparently also to flashes of genius and love of popularity 
on the part of the Emperor himself. 

The provinces were well governed. Judaea was at this time 
preparing for insurrection under the rule of Felix, but he was- 
a legacy from the reign of Claudius. The difficulties in Armenia 
were met at once and vigorously by the appointment of Corbulo; 
the rebellion in Britain was wisely dealt with; even at the end of 
Nero’s reign the appointment of Vespasian to Judaea, as soon as 
the serious character of the revolt was known, shows that the 
Emperor still had the wisdom to select and the courage to appoint 
able men. During the early years a long list is given of trials 
fot reperundae; and the number of convictions, while it shows that 
provincial government was not free from corruption, proves that 
it was becoming more and more possible to obtain justice. It 
was the corruption of the last reign that was condemned by 
the justice of the present. In the year 56, Vipsanius Laenas, 
governor of Sardinia, was condemned for extortion; in 57, 
Capito, the ‘Cilician pirate,” was struck down by the senate 
‘with a righteous thunderbolt.’ Amongst the accusations against 


—— may have been suggested by the certamen quinguennale which 
ero founded in Rome, as Dio tells us, izép THs coutnpias THS Te StapovAs Tow 
kparous avtov, Dio, Zpit. |xi. 21; Tac. Amn. xiv. 20; Suet. Nero 12; cf. the 
soins described, Eckhel, vi. 264; Cohen, i. p. 282, 47-65. CER. QUINQ. 
ROM. CO. 


xvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$i 


Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. And not only were 
the favourites of Claudius condemned, better men were appointed 
in their place. It is recorded that freedmen were never made 
procurators of imperial provinces. And the Emperor was able in 
many cases, in that of Lyons, of Cyrene, and probably of Ephesus, 
to assist and pacify the provincials by acts of generosity and 
benevolence’. 

We may easily, perhaps, lay too much stress on some of the 
measures attributed to Nero; but many of them show, if not the 
policy of his reign, at any rate the tendency of the Empire. The 
police regulations of the city were strict and well executed?. An 
attack was made on the exactions of publicans, and on the excessive 
power of freedmen. Law was growing in exactness owing to the 
influence of Jurists, and was justly administered except where the 
Emperor’s personal wishes intervened*. Once the Emperor—was it 
a mere freak or was it an act of far-seeing political insight ?— 
proposed a measure of free trade for the whole Empire. Governors 
of provinces were forbidden to obtain condonation for exactions by 
the exhibition of games. The proclamation of freedom to Greece 
may have been an act of dramatic folly, but the extension of Latin 
rights meant that the provincials were being gradually put more 
and more on a level with Roman citizens. And the provinces 
flourished for the most part under this rule. It seemed almost as if 
the future career of a Roman noble might depend upon the goodwill 
of his provincial subjects *. And wherever trade could flourish there 
wealth accumulated. Laodicea was so rich that the inhabitants 
could rebuild the city without aid from Rome, and Lyons could 
contribute 4,000,000 sesterces at the time of the great fire*®. 

When, then, St. Paul speaks of the ‘powers that be’ as being 

‘ordained by God’; when he says that the ruler is a minister of 
God for good, when he is giving directions to pay ‘tribute’ and 
‘custom’; he is thinking of a great and beneficent power which 
has made travel for him possible, which had often interfered to 
protect him against an angry mob of his own countrymen, under 
which he had seen the towns through which he passed enjoying 
peace, prosperity and civilization. 


* For the provincial administration of Nero see Furneaux, of. ct. pp. 56, 57; 
W.T. Amold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, pp. 135, 137; 
Tac. Aun. xiii. 30, 31, 33) 5°, 51, 53-57: 

? Suetonius, Vero 16. Schiller, p. 420. 

> Schiller, pp. 381, 382: ‘In dem Mechanismus des gerichtlichen Ver- 
fahrens, im Privatrecht, in der Ausbildung und Forderung der Rechtswissen- 
schaft, selbst auf dem Gebiete der Appellation konnen gegriindete Vorwiirfe 
kaum erhoben werden. Die kaiserliche Regierung liess die Verhaltnisse hies 
ruhig den Gang gehen, welchen ihnen friihere Regierungen angewiesen hatten.” 

* Tac. Amn. xv. 20, 21. 

* Arnold, p. 137. 


§1.] ROME IN A.D. 58 xvii 


But it was not only Nero, it was Seneca’ also who was ruling in 

ome when St. Paul wrote to the Church there. The attempt to 
find any connexions literary or otherwise between St. Paul and 
Seneca may be dismissed ; but for the growth of Christian principles, 
/ still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way 
\ for the spread of Christianity, the fact is of extreme significance. It 
was the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome, as largely in- 
fluencing politics, and shaping the future of the Empire. Itis a strange 
irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest 
representatives of the old regime, for it was Stoicism which provided 
the philosophic basis for the new imperial system, and this was not 
the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own 
morality. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the 
humanitarian and universalist ideas of Stoicism were already begin- 
ning to permeate society. Seneca taught, for example, the equality 
in some sense of all men, even slaves; but it was the populace who 
a few years later (a. D. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered 
Pedanius Secundus were led out to execution®. Seneca and many 
of the Jurists were permeated with the Stoic ideas of humanity and 
benevolence; and however little these principles might influence 
their individual conduct they gradually moulded and changed the 
Jaw and the system of the Empire. 

If we turn from the Empire to Rome, we shall find that just 


those vices which the moralist deplores in the aristocracy and the - 


Emperor helped to prepare the Roman capital for the advent of 
Christianity. If there had not been large foreign colonies, there 
could never have been any ground in the world where Christianity 
could have taken root strongly enough to influence the surrounding 
population, and it was the passion for luxury, and the taste for 
philosophy and literature, even the vices of the court, which 
demanded Greek and Oriental assistance. —The Emperor must have 
teachers in philosophy, and in acting, in recitation and in flute- 
playing, and few of these would be Romans. The statement of 
Chrysostom that St. Paul persuaded a concubine of Nero to accept 
Christianity and forsake the Emperor has probably little foundation’, 
the conjecture that this concubine was Acte is-worthless ; but it may 
illustrate how it was through the non-Roman element of Roman 
society that Clristianity spread. It is not possible to estimate the 
exact proportion of foreign elements in a Roman household, but 
a study of the names in any of the Columbaria of the imperial period 


1 See Lightfoot, St. Paul and Seneca, Philippians, p. 268. To this period 
of his life belong the dmoxodokivtwors, the De Clementia, the De Vita Beata, 
the De Beneficits, and the De Constantia Sapientis. See Teufel, History of 
Roman Literature, translated by Warr, ii. 42. 

2 Tac. Aun. xiv. 42-45. 

* Chrysostom Hom. in Act. App. 46, 3. 

b 


xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$2 
will illustrate how large that element was. Men and women of 

race lived together in the great Roman slave world, or when they 
had received the gift of freedom remained attached as clients and 
friends to the great houses, often united by ties of the closest 
intimacy with their masters and proving the means by which 
every form of strange superstition could penetrate into the highest 
circles of society *. 

And foreign superstition was beginning to spread. The earliest 
monuments of the worship of Mithras date from the time of Tiberius. 
Lucan in his Pharsalia celebrates the worship of Isis in Rome; 
Nero himself reverenced the Syrian Goddess, who was called by many 
names, but is known to us best as Astarte ; Judaism came near to the 
throne with Poppaea Sabina, whose influence over Nero is first traced 
in this year58; while the story of Pomponia Graecina who, in the 
year 57, was entrusted to her husband for trial on the charge of 
‘foreign superstition’ and whose long old age was clouded with 
continuous sadness, has been taken as an instance of Christianity. 
There are not inconsiderable grounds for this view; but in any 
case the accusation against her is an illustration that there was 
a path by which a new and foreign religion like Christianity could 
make its way into the heart of the Roman aristocracy *. 


§ 2. THE JEWS IN RoME*. 


There are indications enough that when he looked towards 
Rome St. Paul thought of it as the seat and centre of the Empire. 
But he had at the same time a smaller and a narrower object. 
His chief interest lay in those little scattered groups of Christians 
of whom he had heard through Aquila and Prisca, and probably 


1 We have collected the following names from the contents of one colum- 
barium (C. Z. Z. vi. 2, p. 941). It dates from a period rather earlier than this. 
It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigners would really be larger 
than appears, for many of them would takea Romanname. Amaranthus 5180, 
Chrysantus 5183, Serapio (ds) 5187, Pylaemenianus 5188, Creticus 5197, 
Asclepiades 5201, Melicus 5217, Antigonus 5227, Cypare 5229, Lezbius 5221, 
Amaryllis 5258, Perseus 5279, Apamea 5287 a, Ephesia 5299, Alexandrianus 
5316, Phyllidianus 5331, Mithres 5344, Diadumenus 5355, Philumenus 5401, 
Philogenes 5410, Graniae Nicopolinis 5419, Corinthus 5439, Antiochis 5437, 
Athenais 5478, Eucharistus 5477, Melitene 5490, Samothrace, Mystius 5527, 
Lesbus 5529. The following, contained among the above, seems to have 
a special interest : “Hdveos Evodod mpecBevris Savayopeiray ray Kata Bwomopoy, 
and “Acnoupyos Biozagoy vids épunveds Sappdrav Bagwopayds 5207. 

2 Tac. Ann xiii. 32; Lightfoot, Clement, i. 30. 

* Since this section was written the author has had access to Berliner, 
Geschichte d. Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. M. 1893), which has enabled him to 
correct some current misconceptions. The facts are also excellently put together 
by Schiirer, Messest. Zetigesch. ii. 505 ff. 


§2.] THE JEWS IN ROME xix 


through others whom he met on his travels. And the thought of the 
Christian Church would at once connect itself with that larger 
community of which it must have been in some sense or other an 
offshoot, the Jewish settlement in the imperial city. 

(1) History. The first relations of the Jews with Rome go back 
to the time of the Maccabaean princes, when the struggling patriots 
of Judaea had some interests in common with the great Republic 
and could treat with it on independent terms. Embassies were 
sent under Judas! (who died in 160 B.c.) and Jonathan * (who died 
in 143), and at last a formal alliance was concluded by Simon 
Maccabaeus in 140, 139°. It was characteristic that on this last 
occasion the members of the embassy attempted a religious 
propaganda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor 
Hispalus *. 

This was only preliminary contact. The first considerable 
settlement of the Jews in Rome dates from the taking of Jerusalem 
by Pompey in s.c. 63°. A number of the prisoners were sold as 
slaves; but their obstinate adherence to their national customs 
proved troublesome to their masters and most of them were soon 
manumitted. These released slaves were numerous and impor- 
tant enough to found a synagogue of their own °, to which they 
might resort when they went on pilgrimage, at Jerusalem. The 
policy of the early emperors favoured the Jews. They passionately 
bewailed the death of Julius, going by night as well as by day to 
his funeral pyre’; and under Augustus they were allowed to form 
a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber®, roughly speak- 
ing opposite the site of the modern ‘Ghetto.’ The Jews’ 
quarter was removed to the left bank of the river in 1556, and 
has been finally done away with since the Italian occupation. 


1 1 Mace. viii. 17-32. 2 y Macc, xii. 1-4, 16. 

3: Macc. xiv. 243 xv. 15-24. 

‘ This statement is made on the authority of Valerius Maximus I. iii, 2 
(Excerpt. Parid.): /udaeos qui Sabazi Jowis cultu Romanos inficere mores 
conatt sunt, repetere domos suas coegit. Doubt is thrown upon it by Berliner 
(p. 4), but without sufficient reason. Val. Max. wrote under Tiberius. and made 
use of good sources. At the same time, what he says about Jupiter Sabazius 
is very probably based on a misunderstanding; nor need we suppose that the 
action of some members of the embassy affected the relations of the two peoples. 

5 This too is questioned by Berliner (p. 5 ff.), who points out that Philo, Leg 
ad Caium 23, from which the statement is taken, makes no mention of Pompey. 
But it is difficult to see what other occasion could answer to the description, as 
this does very well. Berliner however is more probably right in supposing 
that there must have been other and older settlers in Rome to account for the 
language of Cicero so early as B.C. 59 (see below). These settlers may have 
come for purposes of trade. 

* It was called after them the ‘synagogue of the Libertini’ (Acts vi. 10). 

™ Sueton. Caesar 84. 

® This was the quarter usually assigned to prisoners of war (Beschresbung d, 
Stadt Rom, III. iii. 578). 

ba 


xx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. 


Here the Jews soon took root and rapidly increased in numbers. 
It was still under the Republic (B.c. 59) that Cicero in his defence 
of Flaccus pretended to drop his voice for fear of them’. And 
when a deputation came from Judaea to complain of the mis- 
tule of Archelaus, no less than 8000 Roman Jews attached them- 
selves to it®, Though the main settlement was beyond the Tiber 
it must soon have overflowed into other parts of Rome. The 
Jews had a synagogue in connexion with the crowded Subura* 
and another probably in the Campus Martius. There were syna- 
gogues of Avyovornow: and ’Aypirmjovo (i.e. either of the house- 
hold or under the patronage of Augustus ‘ and his minister Agrippa), 
the position of which is uncertain but which in any case bespeak 
the importance of the community. Traces of Jewish cemeteries 
have been found in several out-lying regions, one near the Porta 
Portuensis, two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of S. Callisto, 
and one at Portus, the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber®. 

Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony 
flourished without interruption. But in a.p. 19 two scandalous 
cases occurring about the same time, one connected with the priests 
of Isis, and the other with a Roman lady who having become 
a proselyte to Judaism was swindled of money under pretence 
of sending it to Jerusalem, led to the adoption of repressive 
measures at once against the Jews and the Egyptians. Four 
thousand were banished to Sardinia, nominally to be employed in 
putting down banditti, but the historian scornfully hints that if they 
fell victims to the climate no one would have cared *. 

The end of the reign of Caligula was another anxious and 
critical time for the Jews. Philo has given us a graphic picture of 
the reception of a deputation which came with himself at its head 
to beg for protection from the riotous mob of Alexandria. The 
half-crazy emperor dragged the deputation after him from one point 
to another of his gardens only to jeer at them and refuse any further 


1 The Jews were interested in this trial as Flaccus had laid hands on the 
money collected for the Temple at Jerusalem. Cicero’s speech makes it clear 
that the Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend. 

2 Joseph. Ant. XVII. xi. 1; B./. II. vi. 1. 

8 There is mention of an dpxor SiBovpyatew, C. LZ. G. 6447 (Schiirer, 
Gemeindeverfassung d. Juden in Rom, pp. 16, 35; Berliner, p. 94). As 
synagogues were not allowed within the pomoerium (ibid. p. 16) we may 
suppose that the synagogue itself was without the walls, but that its frequenters 
came from the Subura. 

* Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been given as 
a sort of equivalent for emperor-worship (of. c#t. p. 21). 

5 Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptions, 
which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schiirer in the 
work quoted above (Leipzig, 1879), also more recently by Berliner (of. c##, 

. 46 ff.). 
fF. Annal, ii. 85 sé eb gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum. 


$2] THE JEWS IN ROME xxi 


answer to their petition’. Caligula insisted on the setting up of 
his own bust in the Temple at Jerusalem, and his opportune death 
alone saved the Jews from worse things than had as yet befallen 
them (a.D. 41). ; 

In the early part of the reign of Claudius the Jews had friends 
at court in the two Herod Agrippas, father and son. But a 
mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them 
once again subject to measures of repression. At a date which is 
calculated at about a.p. 52 we find Aquila and Prisca at Corinth 
‘because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from 
Rome’ (Acts xviii. 2). And Suetonius in describing what is 
probably the same event sets it down to persistent tumults in the 
Jewish quarter ‘at the instigation of Chrestus?.’ There is at 
least a considerable possibility, not to say probability, that in this 
enigmatic guise we have an allusion to the effect of the early 
preaching of Christianity, in which in one way or another Aquila 
and Prisca would seem to have been involved and on that account 
specially singled out for exile. Suetonius and the Acts speak of 
a general edict of expulsion, but Dio Cassius, who is more precise, 
would lead us to infer that the edict stopped short of this. The 
clubs and meetings (in the synagogue) which Caligula had allowed, 
were forbidden, but there was at least no wholesale expulsion *. 


Any one of three interpretations may be put upon zmfulsore Chresto 
assidue tumultuantes. (i) The words may be taken literally as they stand. 
‘Chrestus’ was a common name among slaves, and there may have been an 
individual of that name who was the author of the disturbances. This is the 
view of Meyer and Wieseler. (ii) Or it is very possible that there may be 
a confusion between ‘Chrestus’ and ‘Christus.’ Tertullian accuses the 
Pagans of pronouncing the name ‘ Christians’ wrongly as if it were Chres- 
tianz, and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character 
of those who owned it. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatur 
@ vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benigni- 
tate composttum est (Afpol. 3; cf. Justin, Apol. i. § 4). If we suppose some 
such very natural confusion, then the disturbances may have had their origin 
in the excitement caused by the Messianic expectation which was ready to 
break out at slight provocation wherever Jews congregated. This is the 
view of Lange and others including in part Lightfoot (PAz/zppians, p. 169). 
(iii) There remains the third possibility, for which some preference has been 
expressed above, that the disturbing cause was not the Messianic expectation 
in general but the particular form of it identified with Christianity. It is 
certain that Christianity must have been preached at Rome as early as this; 
and the preaching of it was quite as likely to lead to actual violence and 
riot as at Thessalonica or Antioch or Pisidia or Lystra (Acts xvii. 5; xiv. 19; 


1 Leg. ad Caium 44, 45. 

? Sueton. Claud. 25 Judacos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma 
expulit. 

5 Dio Cassius, Ix. 6 tovs re "Iovdaious, tAcovdcavras avdis Wate xaenas av 
dvev Tapaxjs id Tod dxA0D copay THs TéAEMS EcipXOAVal, ovK eEjAageE per, TH 52 
6) tatpiy vopw Biw xpwpevous Exérevoe pr auvabpoifecOa, Tas TE éTaipcios 
éwavaxGeiaas id Tov Tafov déAvae. 


xxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$2 


xiii. 50). That it did so, and that this is the fact alluded to by Suetonius is 
the opinion of the majority of German scholars from Baur onwards. It is 
impossible to verify any one of the three hypotheses ; but the last would fit 
in well with all that we know and would add an interesting touch if it were 
true '. 

The edict of Claudius was followed in about three years by his 
‘ death (a.p. 54). Under Nero the Jews certainly did not lose bur 
probably rather gained ground. We have seen that just as St. Paul 
wrote his Epistle Poppaea was beginning to exert her influence. Like 
many of her class she dallied with Judaism and befriended Jews. The 
mime Aliturus was a Jew by birth and stood in high favour*. Heroa 
Agrippa II was also, like his father, a persona grata at the Roman 
court. Dio Cassius sums up the history of the Jews under the 
Empire in a sentence which describes well their fortunes at Rome. ~ 
Though their privileges were Gften curtailed, they increased to such 
an extent as to force their way to the recognition and toleration of 
their peculiar customs *. 


(2) Organization, The policy of the emperors towards the 
Jewish nationality was on the whole liberal and judicious. They 
saw that they had to deal with a people which it was at once difficult 
to repress and useful to encourage; and they freely conceded 
the rights which the Jews demanded. Not only were they allowed 
the free exercise of their religion, but exceptional privileges were 
granted them in connexion with it. Josephus (Am#. XIV. x.) 
quotes a number of edicts of the time of Julius Caesar and 
after his death, some of them Roman and some local, securing to 
the Jews exemption from service in the army (on religious grounds), 
freedom of worship, of building synagogues, of forming clubs and 
_ collecting contributions (especially the ddrachma) for the Temple 
at Jerusalem. Besides this in the East the Jews were largely 
permitted to have their own courts of justice. And the wonder 
is that in spite of all their fierce insurrections against Rome these 
rights were never permanently withdrawn. As late as the end of 
the second century (in the pontificate of Victor 189-199 a.D.) 


* A suggestion was made in the Church Quarterly Review for Oct. 1894, 
which deserves consideration; viz. that the dislocation of the Jewish com- 
munity caused by the edict of Claudius may explain ‘ why the tch of the 
capital did not grow to the same extent as elsewhere out ef Me sunagogue 
Even when St. Paul arrived there in bonds the chiefs of the restored Jewis! 
organization professed to have heard nothing, officially or enoiisial$y, of the 
Apostle, and to know abont the Christian sect just what we may suppose the 
rioters ten years earlier knew, that it was “everywhere spoken against ”’ 


(P, 175). Ae 
2 Vt. Joseph. 3; Ant. XX. viii. 11. 
3 Dio Cassius xxxvii. 17 €o7t xat mapa Tots Papaios 7d yévos Tovro, eoAoveoA 
= wodAdeis abfniy 38 éwl wreioTov, Sore kal els wappyolay ras veulecen 
AQ OGL. 


$2] THE JEWS IN ROME xxiii 


Callistus, who afterwards himself became Bishop of Rome, was 
banished to the Sardinian mines for forcibly breaking up a Jewish 
meeting for worship (Hippol. Re/ut. Haer. ix. 12). 

There was some natural difference between the East and the 
West corresponding to the difference in number and concentration 
of the Jewish population. In Palestine the central judicial and 
administrative body was the Sanhedrin; after the Jewish War the 
place of the Sanhedrin was taken by the Ethnarch who exercised 
great powers, the Jews of the Dispersion voluntarily submitting to 
him. At Alexandria also there was an Ethnarch, as well as a 
central board or senate, for the management of the affairs of the 
community. At Rome, on the other hand, it would appear that 
each synagogue had its own separate organization. This would 
consist of a ‘senate’ (yepouia), the members of which were the 
‘elders’ (mpecBvrepa), The exact relation of these to the ‘rulers’ 
(dpxovres) is not quite clear: the two terms may be practically: 
equivalent ; or the dpyovres may ‘e a sort of committee within the 
larger body’. The senate hac its ‘ president’ (yepovordpyns) ; and 
among the rulers one or more would seem to have been charged 
with the conduct of the services in the synagogue (dpxicvvdywyos, 
apx:ovvaywyor). Under him would be the tsnpérns (Chazan) who 
performed the minor duties of giving out and putting back the 
sacred rolls (Luke iv. 20), inflicted scourging (Matt. x. 17), and 
acted as schoolmaster. The priests as such had no special séa/us 
in the synagogue. We hear at Rome of wealthy and influential 
people ‘who were called ‘ father’ or ‘mother of the synagogue’ ; 
this would be an honorary title. There is also mention of a mpo- 
orams or patronus, who would on occasion act for the synagogue 
in its relation to the outer world. 

(3) Soctal status and condition. There were cectainly Jews of 
rank and position at Rome. Herod the Great had sent a number 
of his sons to be educated there (the ill-fated Alexander and 
Aristobulus as well as Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip the tetrarch*). 
At a later date other members of the family made it their home 
(Herod the first husband of Herodias, the younger Aristobulus, 
and at one time Herod Agrippal). There were also Jews attached 
in one way or another to the imperial household (we have had 
mention of the synagogues of the Agrippestt and Augustesit), These 
would be found in the more aristocratic quarters. The Jews’ 


* This is the view of Schiirer (Gemeindeverf. p. 22). The point is not 
discussed by Berliner. Dr. Edersheim appears to regard the ‘elders’ as 
identical with the ‘rulers,’ and the dpxiovvaywyos as chief of the body. He 
would make the functions of the yepouvoiapyns political rather than religious, 
and he speaks of this office as if it were confined to the Dispersion of the West 
(Life and Times, &c. i. 438). These are points which must be regarded as 
more or less open. 


* Jos. Ant. XV. x.1; XVIL i 3. 


xxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. 


quarter proper was the reverse of aristocratic. The fairly plentiful 
notices which have come down to us in the works of the Satirists 
lead us to think of the Jews of Rome as largely a population of 
beggars, vendors of small wares, sellers of lucifer matches, collectors 
of broken glass, fortune-tellers of both sexes. They haunted the 
Aventine with their baskets and wisps of hay*. Thence they would 
sally forth and try to catch the ear especially of the wealthier 
Roman women, on whose superstitious hopes and fears they might 
play and earn a few small coins by their pains ?. 

Between these extremes we may infer the existence of a more 
substantial trading class, both from the success which at this period 
had begun to attend the Jews in trade and from the existence of 
the numerous synagogues (nine are definitely attested) which it 
must have required a considerable amount and some diffusion of 
wealth to keep up. But of this class we have less direct evidence. 

In Rome, as everywhere, the Jews impressed the observer by 
their strict performance of the Law. The Jewish sabbath was 
proverbial. The distinction of meats was also carefully maintained *. 
But along with these external observances the Jews did succeed in 
bringing home to their Pagan neighbours the contrast of their 
purer faith to the current idolatries, that He whom they served 
did not dwell in temples made with hands, and that He was not to 
be likened to ‘gold or silver or stone, graven by art and device 
of man.’ 

It is difficult to say which is more conspicuous, the repulsion or 
the attraction which the Jews exercised upon the heathen world. 
The obstinate tenacity with which they held to their own customs, 
and the rigid exclusiveness with which they kept aloof from all 
others, offended a society which had come to embrace all the varied 
national religions with the same easy tolerance and which passed 
from one to the other as curiosity or caprice dictated. They 
looked upon the Jew as a gloomy fanatic, whose habitual expres- 
sion was a scowl. It was true that he condemned, as he had 
reason to condemn, the heathen laxity around him. And his 
neighbours, educated and populace alike, retaliated with bitter 
hatred and scorn. 

At the same time all—and there were many—who were in search 


1 The purpose of this is somewhat uncertain: it may have been used to pack 
their wares. 

2 The passages on which this description is based are well known. Small 
Trades: Martial, Zpig. I. xlii. 3-5; XII. lvii. 13,14. Mendicancy: Juvenal, 
Sat. iii. 14; vi. 542 ff. Proselytism: Horace, Sat. I. iv. 142 f.; Juvenal, Sat. 
xiv. 96 ff. 

= aan Sat. I. ix. 69 f.; Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. (of proselytes) ; Persius, 
Sat. v. 184; Sueton. Aug. 76. The texts of Greek and Latin authors relating 
to Judaism have recently been collected in a complete and convenient form by 
Théodore Reinach ( 7extes relatifs as _Judaisme, Paris, 1895), 


§ 3] THE ROMAN CHURCH XXV 


of a purer creed than their own, knew that the Jew had something 
to give them which they could not get elsewhere. The heathen 
Pantheon was losing its hold, and thoughtfil minds were ‘ feeling 
after if haply they might find’ the one God who made heaven and 
earth. Nor was it only the higher minds who were conscious of 
a strange attraction in Judaism. Weaker and more superstitious 
natures were impressed by its lofty claims, and also as we may 
believe by the gorgeous apocalyptic visions which the Jews of this 
date were ready to pour out to them. The seeker wants to be told 
something that he can do to gain the Divine favour; and of such 
demands and precepts there was no lack. The inquiring Pagan 
was met with a good deal of tact on the part of those whom he 
consulted. He was drawn on little by little; there was a place for 
every one who showed a real sympathy for the faith of Israel. It 
was not necessary that he should at once accept circumcision and 
the whole burden of the Mosaic Law; but as he made good one 
step another was proposed to him, and the children became in 
many cases more zealous than their fathers’, So round most of ~ 
the Jewish colonies there was gradually formed a fringe of Gentiles 
more or less in active sympathy with their religion, the ‘devout 
men and women,’ ‘those who worshipped God’ (eiceBeis, c<Bopvevor, 
ocBopevar Tov Gedy, PoBovpevor tov Gedv) Of the Acts of the Apostles. 
For the student of the origin of the Christian Church this class is 
of great importance, because it more than any other was the seed 
plot of Christianity; in it more than in any other the Gospel took 
root and spread with ease and rapidity *. 


§ 3. THE ROMAN CHURCH. 


(1) Origin. The most probable view of the origin of the 
Christian Church in Rome is substantially that of the commen- 
tator known as Ambrosiaster (see below, § 10). This fourth- 

| writer, himself probably a member of the Roman Church, 
does not claim for it an apostolic origin. He thinks that it arose 
yamong the Jews of Rome and that the Gentiles to whom they 
‘y conveyed a knowledge of Christ had not seen any miracles or any 
of the Apostles*. Some such conclusion as this fits in well with 


1 Juvenal, Sav. xiv, 96 ff. 

2 See the very ample collection of material on this subject in Schiirer, 
Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. 558 ff. 

* Constat ttague temporibus apostolorum Tudaeos, propterea quod sub regno 
Romano agerent, Romae habitasse: ex quibus hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt 
Romanis ut Christum profitentes, Legem servarent ... Romanis autem irasct 
non adebuit, sed et laudare fidem sllorum; quia nulla insignia virtuium 


xxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$8 


the phenomena of the Epistle. St. Paul wouki hardly have written 
as he does if the Church had really been founded by an Apostle. 
He clearly regards it as coming within his own province as A: 

of the Gentiles (Rom. i. 6, 14f.); and in this very Epistle he lays 
it down as a principle governing all his missionary labours that he 


~\< will not ‘build upon another man’s foundation” (Rom. xv. 20). 


If an Apostle had been before him to Rome the only supposition 
which would save his present letter from clashing with this would 
be that there were two distinct churches in Rome, one Jewish- 
Christian the other Gentile-Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only 
to the latter. But not only is there no hint of such a state of 
things, but the letter itself (as we shall see) implies a mixed 
community, a community not all of one colour, but embracing 
in substantial proportions both Jews and Gentiles. 

At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Apostles 
of a faith which grew up under the shadow of Jewish particu- 
larism would have had the enterprise to cast their glance so far 
west as Rome. It was but natural that the first Apostle to do 
this should be the one who both in theory and in practice had 
struck out the boldest line as a missionary; the one who had 
formed the largest conception of the possibilities of Christianity, 
the one who risked the most in the effort to realize them, and who 
as a matter of principle ignored distinctions of language and of 
race. We see St. Paul deliberately conceiving and long cherishing 
the purpose of himself making a journey to Rome (Acts xix. 21 ; 
Rom. i. 13; xv. 22-24). It was not however to found a Church, 
at least in the sense of first foundation, for a Church already 
existed with sufficient unity to have a letter written to it. 

If we may make use of the data in ch. xvi—and reasons will 
be given for using them with some confidence—the origin of the 
Roman Church will be fairly clear, and it will agree exactly with 
the probabilities of the case. Never in the course of previous 
history had there been anything like the freedom of circulation 
and movement which now existed in the Roman Empire’. And 
this movement followed certain definite lines and set in certain 
definite directions. It was at its greatest all along the Eastern 
shores of the Mediterranean, and its general trend was to and from 
Rome. The constant coming and going of Roman officials, as 
one provincial governor succeeded another ; the moving of troops 


videntes, nec aliguem apostolorum, susceperant fidem Christi ritu licet Iudaice 
(S. Ambrosii Off. iii. 373 f., ed. Ballerini). We shall see that Ambrosiaster 
exaggerates the strictly jewish influence on the Church, but in his general 
conclusion he is more right than we might have expected. 

+ «The conditions of travelling, for ease, safety, and rapidity, over the 
greater part of the Roman empire, were such as in part have only been reached 
again in Europe since the beginning of the present century’ (Friedlander, 
Stttengeschichte Roms, ii. 3). 


§3:] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxvii 


from place to place with the sending of fresh batches of recruits 
and the retirement of veterans ; the incessant demands of an ever- 
increasing trade both in necessaries and luxuries; the attraction 
which the huge metropolis naturally exercised on the imagination 
of the clever young Orientals who knew that the best openings for 
a career were to be sought there; a thousand motives of ambition, 
business, pleasure drew a constant stream from the Eastern pro- 
vinces to Rome. Among the crowds there would inevitably be some ° 
Christians, and those of very varied nationality and antecedents. 
St. Paul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of 
the greatest of the Levantine emporta. We maysay that the three great 
cities at which he had spent the longest time—Antioch, Corinth, 
Ephesus—were just the three from which (with Alexandria) inter- 
course was most active. We may be sure that not a few of his 
own disciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. And so 
we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in 
ch. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. In several cases 
he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal 
contact and interest: Epaenetus, Ampliatus, Stachys are all his 
‘beloved’; Urban has been his ‘ helper’; the mother of Rufus had 
been also as a mother to him; Andronicus and Junia (or Junias) 
and Herodion are described as his ‘ kinsmen’—i.e. perhaps his 
fellow-tribesmen, possibly like him natives of Tarsus. Andronicus 
and Junias, if we are to take the expression literally, had shared 
one of his imprisonments. But not by any means all were 
St. Paul’s own converts. The same pair, Andronicus and Junias, 
were Christians of older standing than himself. Epaenetus is 
described as the first convert ever made from Asia: that may of 
course be by the preaching of St. Paul, but it is also possible that 
he may have been converted while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
If the Aristobulus whose household is mentioned is the Herodian 
prince, we can easily understand that he might have Christians 
about him. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just 
what we might expect from one with so keen an eye for the 
strategy of a situation as St. Paul. When he was himself esta- 
blished and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting 
Rome, it would at once occur to him what valuable work they might 
be doing there and what an excellent preparation they might make 
for his: own visit, while in his immediate surroundings they were 
almost superfluous. So that instead of presenting any difficulty, 
that he should send them back to Rome where they were already 
known, is most natural. 

In this way, the previous histories of the friends to whom St. Paul 
sends greeting in ch. xvi may be taken as typical of the circum- 
stances which would bring together a number of similar groups of 
Christians. at Rome. Some from Palestine, some from Corinth, 


xxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. 


some from Ephesus and other parts of proconsular Asia, possibly 
some from Tarsus and more from the Syrian Antioch, there was in 
the first instance, as we may believe, nothing concerted in their 
going ; but when once they arrived in the metropolis, the free- 
masonry common amongst Christians would soon make them 
known to each other, and they would form, not exactly an organized 
Church, but such a fortuitous assemblage of Christians as was only 
waiting for the advent of an Apostle to constitute one. 

For other influences than those of St. Paul we are left to general 
probabilities. But from the fact that there was a synagogue specially 
assigned to the Roman ‘Libertini’ at Jerusalem and that this 
synagogue was at an early date the scene of public debates between 
Jews and Christians (Acts vi. 9), with the further fact that regular 
communication would be kept up by Roman Jews frequenting the 
feasts, it is equally clear that Palestinian Christianity could hardly 
fail to have its representatives. We may well believe that the 
vigorous preaching of St. Stephen would set a wave in motion 
which would be felt even at Rome. Ifcoming from such a source 
we should expect the Jewish Christianity of Rome to be rather of 
the freer Hellenistic type than marked by the narrowness of 
Pharisaism. But it is best to abstain from anticipating, and to form 
our idea of the Roman Church on better grounds than conjecture. 


If the view thus given of the origin of the Roman Church is correct, it 
involves the rejection of two other views, one of which at least has imposing 
authority ; viz. (i) that the Church was founded by Jewish pilgrims from the 
First Pentecost, and (ii) that its true founder was St. Peter. 

(i) We are told expressly that among those who listened to St. Peter’s 
address on the Day of Pentecost were some who came from Kome, both 
born Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes. When these returned they 
would naturally take with them news of the strange things which were 
happening in Palestine. But unless they remained for some time in Jerusalem, 
and unless they attended very diligently to the teaching of the Apostles, 
which would as yet be informal and not accompanied by any regular system 
of Catechests, they would not know enough to make them in the full sense 
‘Christians’; still less would they be in a position to evangelize others. 
Among this first group there would doubtless be some who would go back 
predisposed and prepared to receive fuller instruction in Christianity; they 
might be at a similar stage to that of the disciples of St. John the Baptist at 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 2 ff.); and under the successive impact of later visits 
(their own or their neighbours’) to Jerusalem, we could imagine that their 
faith would be gradually consolidated. But it would take more than they 
brought away from the Day of Pentecost to lay the foundations of a 
Church. 

(ii) The traditional founder of the Roman Church is St. Peter. But it is 
only in a very qualified sense that this tradition can be made good. We 
may say at once that we are not prepared to go the length of those who 
would deny the connexion of St. Peter with the Roman Church altogether. 
It is true that there is hardly an item in the evidence which is not subject to 
some deduction. The evidence which is definite is somewhat late, and the 
evidence which is early is either too uncertain or too slight and vague to 


§3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxix 


carry a clear conclusion’. Most decisive of all, if it held good, would be 
the allusion in St. Peter’s own First Epistle if the ‘ Babylon’ from which he 
writes (1 Pet. v. 13) is really a covert name for Rome. This was the view of 
the Early Church, and although perhaps not absolutely certain it is in accord- 
ance with all probability. The Apocalypse confessedly puts ‘ Babylon’ for 
Rome (Rey. xiv. 8; xvi 19, &c.), and when we remember the common 
practice among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the op- 
pressor, we may believe that Christians also, when they had once become 
suspected and persecuted, might have fallen into the habit of using a secret 
language among themselves, even where there was less occasion for secresy. 
When once we adopt this view, a number of details in the Epistle (such 
as the mention of Silvanus and Mark, and the points of contact between 
1 Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation °. : 

The genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome (¢. 97 A.D.) couples together 
St. Peter and St. Paul in a context dealing with persecution in such a way 
as to lend some support to the tradition that both Apostles had perished 
there‘; and the Epistle of Ignatius addressed to Rome (¢. 115 A.D.) appeals 
to both Apostles as authorities which the Roman Church would be likely to 
Tecognize®; but at the utmost this proves nothing as to the origin of the 
Church. When we descend a step later, Dionysius of Corinth (¢. 171 A.D.) 
does indeed couple the two Apostles as having joined in ‘planting’ the 
Church of Rome as they had done previously that of Corinth®. But this 
Epistle alone is proof that if St. Paul could be said to have ‘planted’ the 
Church, it could not be in the sense of first foundation; and a like considera- 
tion must be taken to qualify the statements of Irenaeus’. By the beginning 
of the third century we get in Tertullian® and Caius of Rome® explicit 
references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. The latter writer 
points to the ‘trophies’ (7d tpma:a) of the two Apostles as existing in his 
day on the Vatican and by the Ostian Way. This is conclusive evidence as 
to the belief of the Roman Church about the year 200, And it is followed 
by another piece of evidence which is good and precise as far as it goes. 


» The summary which follows contains only the main points and none of the 
indirect evidence. For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred to 
Lightfoot, St. Clement ii. 490 ff., and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 11 ff. 

* On this practice, see Biesenthal, 7vostschreiben an die Hebraer, p. 3 ff. ; 
and for a defence of the view that St. Peter wrote his lirst Epistle from Rome, 
Lightfoot, St. Clement ii. 491 f.; Von Soden in Handcommentar III. ii. 105 f. 
&c. Dr. Hort, who had paid special attention to this Epistle, seems to have 
held the same opinion (_Judazstzc Christianity, p. 155). 

8 There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take é&v BaSvA@m in any 
other sense than literally. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Ovac. Sibyl. v. 
159 (Jewish) ; and it should be remembered that the advocates of this view 
include men of the most diverse opinions, not only the English scholars men- 
tioned above and Déllinger, but Renan and the Tiibingen school generally. 


* Ad Cor. v. 4 ff. 5 Ad Rom. iv. 3. 
® Eus. Z. £. II. xxv. 8. 1 Adv. Haer, X11. iii. 2, 3. 
® Scorp.15; De Praescript. 36. ® Eus. H. Z. II. xxv. 6, 7. 


10 There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this word. 
The leading Protestant archaeologists (Lipsius, Erbes, V. Schultze) hold that 
it refers to some conspicuous mark of the place of martyrdom (a famous 
‘terebinth’ near the zaumachium on the Vatican (Mart. Pet. e¢ Paul. 63) and 
a ‘ pine-tree’ near the road to Ostia. The Roman Catholic authorities would 
refer it to the ‘tombs’ or ‘memorial chapels’ (semoriae). It seems to us 
probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. For statements 
of the opposing views see Lipsius, 4pokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 21; De Waal, Dae 
Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas, p. 14 fi. 


XXX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3 


Two fourth-century documents, both in texts which have undergone some 
comuption, the Martyrologium Hicronymianum (ed. Ductesne, p. 84) and 
a Depositio Martyrum in the work of Philocalus, the so-called ‘ chronographer 
of the year 354,’ connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with 
the consulship of Tuscus and Bassus in the year 258. There is some 
ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved ; 
but the most probable view is that in the Valerian persecution when the 
cemeteries were closed to Christians, the treasured relics were transferred to 
the. site known as Ad Catacumbas adjoining the present Church of St. 
Sebastian’. Here they remained, according to one version, for a year and 
seven. months, according to another for forty years. The later story of an 
attempt by certain Orientals to steal them away seems to have grown out of 
a misunderstanding of an inscription by Pope Damasus (366-384 A.D.) *. 
Here we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fully 
believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles 
as far back as the year 200, a tradition at that date already firmly established 
and associated with definite well-known local monuments. ‘The tradition as 
to, the twenty-five years’ episcopate of St. Peter presents some points of re- 
semblance. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with 
Eusebius (c. 325 A.D.) and his follower Jerome. By skilful analysis it is 
traced back a full hundred years earlier. It appears to be derived from a list 
drawn, up probably by Hippolytus*. Lipsius would carry back this list 
a little further, and would make it composed under Victor in the last decade 
of the second century‘, and Lightfoot seems to think it possible that the 
figures for the duration of the several episcopates may have been present in 
the still older list of Hegesippus, writing under Eleutherus (¢. 175-190 A.D.)°. 
Thus we have the twenty-five years’ episcopate of St. Peter certainly 
believed in towards the end of the first quarter of the third century, if not by 
the beginning of the last quarter of the second. We are coming back to 
a,time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. And yet the 
difficulties in the way of bringing St. Peter to Rome at a date so early as the 
year 42 (which seems to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptance 
of this chronology almost impossible. Not only do we find St. Peter to all 
appearance still settled at Jerusalem at the time of the Council in A.D. 51, 
but we have seen that it is highly improbable that he had visited Rome 
when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there. And it is hardly less 
improbable that a visit had been made between this and the later Epistles 
(Phil., Col., Eph., Philem.). The relations between the two Apostles and of 
both to the work of missions in general, would almost compel some allusion 
to such a visit if it had taken place. Between the years 58 or 61-63 and 170 
there is quite time for legend to grow up; and Lipsius has pointed ont 
a possible way in which it might arise® There is evidence that the tradition 
of our Lord’s command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve 
years after His Ascension, was current towards the end of the second century, 
The. travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period 


' The best account of this transfer is that given by Duchesne, Liber Pontifi- 
calts i. cvi f. 

2 So Lipsius, after Erbes, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 335 f., 391 ff. ; also Light- 
foot, Clement ii. 500. The Roman Catholic writers, Kraus and De Waal, 
would connect the story with the jealousies of Jewish and Gentile Christians in 
the first century: see the latter’s Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas, pp. 33 f4 
49 ff. This work contains a full survey of the controversy with new archaeco 
togieal details. 

> Lightfoot, of. cét. i. 259 ff. ; 333- 

® Ap. Ligntioct, pp. 237, 333- ® JFéd. p. 333- 

© Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 27, 0 


§3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxxi 


(ie. about 41-42 a.D.). Then the traditional date of the death of St. Peter 

is 67 or 68; and subtracting 42 from 67 we get just the 25 years required. 

= was assumed that St. Peter’s episcopate dated from his first arrival in 
ome. 

So far the ground is fairly clear. But when Lipsius goes further than this 
and denies the Roman visit 2” fofo, his criticism seems to us too drastic!. 
He arrives at his result thus. He traces a double stream in the tradition. 
On the one hand there is the ‘ Petro-pauline tradition’ which regards the two 
Apostles as establishing the Church in friendly co-operation*. The outlines 
of this have been sketched above. On the other hand there is the tradition 
of the conflict of St. Peter with Simon Magns, which under the figure of 
Simon Magus made a disguised attack upon St. Paul’. Not only does 
Lipsius think that this is the earliest form of the tradition, but he regards it 
as the original of all other forms which brought St. Peter to Rome‘: the 
only historical ground for it which he would allow is the visit of St. Paul. 
This does not seem to us to be a satisfactory explanation. The traces of the 
Petro-pauline tradition are really earlier than those of the Ebionite legend. 
The way in which they are introduced is free from all suspicion. They are 
supported by collateral evidence (St. Peter’s First Epistle and the traditions 
relating to St. Mark) the weight of which is considerable. There is practic- 
ally no conflicting tradition. The claim of the Roman Church to joint 
foundation by the two Apostles seems to have been nowhere disputed. And 
even the Ebionite fiction is more probable as a distortion of facts that have 
a basis of truth than as pure invention. The visit of St. Peter to Rome, and 
his death there at some uncertain date *, seem to us, if not removed beyond 
all possibility of doubt, yet as well established as many of the leading facts 
of history. 


(2) Composition. The question as to the origin of the Roman 
Church has little more than an antiquarian interest; it is an isolated 
fact or series of facts which does not greatly affect either the picture 
which we form to ourselves of the Church or the sense in which 
we understand the Epistle addressed to it. It is otherwise with 
the question as to its composition. Throughout the Apostolic age 
the determining factor in most historical problems is the relative 


1 It is significant that on this point Weizsacker parts company from Lipsius 
(Apost. Zeitalt. p. 485). : 

Op. ctt. p. 11 ff. * Ibid. p. 28 ff. 

7 hid p. 62 ff. 

5 There is no substantial reason for supposing the death of St. Peter to have 
taken place at the same time as that of St. Paul. It is true that the two 
Apostles are commemorated upon the same day (June 29), and that the 
Chronicle of Eusebius refers their deaths to the same year (A.D. 67 Vers. 
Armen. ; 68 Hieron.). But the day is probably that of the deposition or re- 
moval of the bodies to or from the Church of St. Sebastian (see above) ; and 
for the year the evidence is very insufficient. Professor Ramsay (7he Church 
in the Roman Empire, p. 279 ff.) would place the First Epistle of St. Peter in 
the middle of the Flavian period, a.D. 75-80; and it must be admitted that the 
authorities are not such as to impose an absolute veto on this view. The fact 
that tradition connects the death of St. Peter with the Vatican would seem to 
point tothe great persecution of A.D. 64; but the state of things implied in 
the Epistle does not look as if it were anterior to this. On the other hand, 
Professor Ramsay's a:guments have greatly shaken the objections to the tradi: 
tional date of the death of St. Paul - 


xxxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. 


, preponderance of the Jewish element or the Gentile. Which of 
these two elements are we to think of as giving its character to 
the Church at Rome? Directly contrary answers have been given 
to the question and whole volumes of controversy have grown up 
around it; but in this instance some real advance has been made, 
and the margin of difference among the leading critics is not now 
very considerable. 

Here as in so many other cases elsewhere the sharper statement of 
the problem dates from Baur, whose powerful influence drew a long 
train of followers after him; and here as so often elsewhere the 
manner in which Baur himself approaches the question is deter- 
mined not by the minute exegesis of particular passages but by 
a broad and comprehensive view of what seems to him to be the 
argument of the Epistle as a whole. To him the Epistle seems to 
be essentially directed against Jewish Christians. The true centre 
of gravity of the Epistle he found in chaps. ix—xi. St. Paul there 
grapples at close quarters with the objection that if his doctrine 
held good, the special choice of Israel—its privileges and the 
promises made to it—all fell to the ground. At first there is no 
doubt that the stress laid by Baur on these three chapters in com- 
parison with the rest was exaggerated and one-sided. His own 
disciples criticized the position which he took up on this point, and 
he himself gradually drew back from it, chiefly by showing that 
a like tendency ran through the earlier portion of the Epistle. 
There too St. Paul’s object was to argue with the Jewish Christians 
and to expose the weakness of their reliance on formal obedience 
to the Mosaic Law. 

The writer who has worked out this view of Baur’s most elabo- 
rately is Mangold. It is’ not difficult to show, when the Epistle is 
closely examined, that there is a large element in it which is 
essentially Jewish. The questions with which it deals are Jewish, 
the validity of the Law, the nature of Redemption, the principle on 
which man is to become righteous in the sight of God, the choice 
of Israel. It is also true that the arguments with which St. Paul 
meets these questions are very largely such as would appeal 
specially to Jews. His own views are linked on directly to the 
teaching of the Old Testament, and it is to the Old Testament 
that he goes in support of them. It is fair to ask, what sort of 
relevance arguments of this character would have as addressed to 
Gentiles. 

It was also possible to point to one or two expressions in detail 
which might seem to favour the assumption of Jewish readers. 
Such would be Rom. iv. 1 where Abraham is described (in the 
most probable text) as ‘our forefather according to the flesh’ (ri» 
mpordropa jav kata odpxa). To that however it was obvious to 
reply that in 1 Cor. x. 1 St. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the 


$3] THE ROMAN CHURCH XxxXili 


wilderness as ‘our fathers,’ though no one would maintain that the 
Corinthian Christians were by birth Jews. There is more weight 
—indeed there is real weight—in the argument drawn from the 
section, Rom. vii. r-6, where not only are the readers addressed 
as adcAdoi pou (which would be just as possible if they were con- 
verts from heathenism) but a sustained contrast is drawn between 
an earlier state under the Law (6 vopos wv. 1, 4, 5, 6; not vv. 2, 3 
where the force of the article is different) and a later state of free- 
dom from the Law. It is true that this could not have been 
written to a Church which consisted wholly of Gentiles, unless the 
Apostle had torgotten himself for the moment more entirely than 
he is likely to have done. Still such expressions should not be 
pressed too far. He associates his readers with himself in a manner 
somewhat analogous to that in which he writes to the Corinthians, 
as if their spiritual ancestry was the same as his own. Nor was 
this without reason. He regards the whole pre-Messianic period 
as a period of Law, of which the Law of Moses was only the most 
conspicuous example. 

It is a minor point, but also to some extent a real one, fhat the 
exhortations in chs. xiii, xiv are probably in part at least addressec 
to Jews. That turbulent race, which had called down the inter- 
ference of the civil power some six or seven years before, needed 
a warning to keep the peace. And the party which had scruples 
about the keeping of days is more likely to have been Jewish than 
Gentile. Still that would only show that some members of the 
Roman Church were Jews, not that they formed a majority. Indeed 
in this instance the contrary would seem to be the case, because 
their opponents seem to have the upper hand and all that St. Paul 
asks for on their behalf is toleration. 

We may take it then as established that there were Jews in the 
Church, and that in substantial numbers; just as we also cannot 
doubt that there was a substantial number of Gentiles. The direct 
way in which St. Paul addresses the Gentiles in ch. xi. 13 ff. (dpi 
dé A€yw tois €Oveow x.7.X.) would be proof sufficient of this. But it 
is further clear that St. Paul regards the Church as broadly and in 
the main a Gentile Church. It is the Gentile element which gives 
itits-colour. This inference cannot easily be explained away from 
the passages, Rom. i. 5-7, 13-15; xv. 14-16. In the first St. Paul 
numbers the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches, and 
bases on his own apostleship to the Gentiles his right to address 
them. In the second he also connects the obligations he is under 
to preach to them directly with the general fact that all Gentiles 
without exception are his province. In the third he in like manner 
excuses himself courteously for the earnestness with which he has 
written by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest wha 
lays upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his offering. 


's 


xxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [$a 
This then is the natural construction to put upon the Apostle’s 


/ language. The Church to which he is writing is Gentile in its 


general complexion; but at the same time it contains so many 


»born Jews that he passes easily and freely from the one body to 


the other. He does not feel bound to measure and weigh his 
words, because if he writes in the manner which comes most 
naturally to himself he knows that there will be in the Church 
many who will understand him. The fact to which we have 
already referred, that a large proportion even of the Gentile Chris- 
tians would have approached Christianity through the portals of 
a previous connexion with Judaism, would tend to set him still 
more at his ease in this respect. We shall see in the next section 
that the force which impels the Apostle is behind rather than in 
front. It is not to be supposed that he had any exact statistics 
before him as to the composition of the Church to which he was 
writing. It was enough that he was aware that a letter such as he 
has written was not likely to be thrown away. 

If he had stayed to form a more exact estimate we may take the 
greetings in ch. xvi as a rough indication of the lines that it would 
follow. The collection of names there points to a mixture of 
nationalities. Aquila at least, if not also Prisca’, we know to have 
been a Jew (Acts xviii. 2). Andronicus and Junias and Herodion 
are described as ‘kinsmen’ (ovyyeveis) of the Apostle: precisely 
what this means is not certain—perhaps ‘members of the same 
tribe ’—but in any case they must have been Jews. Mary (Miriam) 
is a Jewish name; and Apelles reminds us at once of Judaeus Apella: 
(Horace, Sat. I. v. 100). And there is besides ‘the household of 
Aristobulus,’ some of whom—if Aristobulus was really the 
of Herod or at least connected with that dynasty—would probably 
have the same nationality. Four names (Urbanus, Ampliatus, 
Rufus, and Julia) are Latin. The rest (ten in number) are Greek. 
with an indeterminate addition in ‘the household of Narcissus.’ 
Some such proportions as these might well be represented im the 
Church at large. 

(3) Status and Condition: The same list of names may give us 
some idea of the social status of a representative group of Roman 
Christians. The names are largely those of slaves and freedmen. 
In any case the households of Narcissus and Aristobulus would 
belong to this category. It is not inconceivable, though of course 
not proveable, that Narcissus may be the well-known freedman of 
Claudius, put to death in the year 54 a.D., and Aristobulus the 
scion of the house of Herod. We know that at the time when 


1 See the note on ch. xvi. 3, where reference is made to the view favoured 
by Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 12 ff.), that Prisca was a Roman lady belonging 
to the well-known family of that name. 


$3.] THE ROMAN CHURCH XXX¥ 


St. Paul wrote to the Philippians Christianity had penetrated inte 
the retinue of the Emperor himself (Phil. iv. 22). A name like 
Philologus seems to point to a certain degree of culture. We 
should therefore probably not be wrong in supposing that not 
only the poorer class of slaves and freedmen is represented. And 
it must be remembered that the better sort of Greek and some 
Oriental slaves would often be more highly educated and more 
refined in manners than their masters. There is good reason to 
think that Pomponia Graecina, the wife of Aulus Plautius the 
conqueror of Britain, and that in the next generation Flavius 
Clemens and Domitilla, the near relations and victims of Domitian, 
had come under Christian influence’. We should therefore be 
justified in supposing that even at this early date more than one of 
the Roman Christians possessed a not inconsiderable social stand- 
ing and importance. If there was any Church in which the ‘not 
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,’ 
had an exception, it was at Rome. 

When we look again at the list we see that it has a tendency to 
fall into groups. We hear of Prisca and Aquila, ‘and the Church 
that is in their house,’ of the household of Aristobulus and the 
Christian members of the household of Narcissus, of Asyncritus, &c. 
‘and the brethren that are with them,’ of Philologus and certain 
companions ‘and all the saints that are with them.’ It would only 
be what we should expect if the Church of Rome at this time 
consisted of a number of such little groups, scattered over the 
great city, each with its own rendezvous but without any complete 
and centralized organization. In more than one of the incidental 
notices of the Roman Church it is spoken of as ‘founded’ (Iren. 
Adv. Haer, Ill. i. 1; iii. 3) or ‘planted’ (Dionysius of Corinth in 
Eus. #. £. II. xxv. 8) by St. Peter and St. Paul. It may well be 
that although the Church did not in the strict sense owe to these 
Apostles its origin, it did owe to them its first existence as an 
organized whole. 

We must not however exaggerate the want of organization at 
the time when St. Paul is writing. The repeated allusions to 
‘labouring’ (komay) in the case of Mary, Tryphaena and Tryphosa, 
and Persis—all, as we observe, women—points to some kind of 
regular ministry (cf. for the quasi-technical sense of xomav 1 Thess. 
v.12; 1 Tim.v. 17). It is evident that Prisca and Aquila took 
the lead which we should expect of them; and they were well 
trained in St. Paul’s methods. Even without the help of an 
Apostle, the Church had evidently a life of its own; and where 
there is life there is sure to be a spontaneous tendency to definite 
articulation of function. When St. Paul and St. Peter arrived we © 


1 Lightfoot, Clement, i. 30-39, &c. 


7 


xxxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. 


may believe that they would find the work half done; still it would 
wait the seal of their presence, as the Church of Samaria waited for 
the coming of Peter and John (Acts viii. 14). 


§ 4. THE TIME AND PLACE, OCCASION AND PURPOSE, 
OF THE EPISTLE. 


(1) Zime and Place. The time and place at which the Epistle 
was written are easy to determine. And the simple and natural 
way in which the notes of both in the Epistle itself dovetail into the 
narrative of the Acts, together with the perfect consistency of the 
whole group of data—subtle, slight, and incidental as they are—in 
the two documents, at once strongly confirms the truth of the 
history and would almost alone be enough to dispose of the 
doctrinaire objections which have been brought against the 
Epistle. 

St. Paul had long cherished the desire of paying a visit to Rome 
(Rom. i. 13; xv. 23), and that desire he hopes very soon to see 
fulfilled; but at the moment of writing his face is turned not 
westwards but eastwards. A collection has been made in the 
Greek Churches, the proceeds of which he is with an anxious mind 
about to convey to Jerusalem. He feels that his own relation and 
that of the Churches of his founding to the Palestinian Church is 


a delicate matter; the collection is no lightly considered act of ~ 


passing charity, but it has been with him the subject of long and 
earnest deliberation ; it is the olive-branch which he is bent upon 
offering. Great issues turn upon it; and he does not know how it 
will be received’. 

We hear much of this collection in the Epistles written about 
this date (1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff.; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ff.; ix. 1 ff.). In the 
Acts it is not mentioned before the fact; but retrospectively in 
the course of St. Paul’s address before Felix allusion is made to 
it: ‘after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and 
offerings’ (Acts xxiv. 17). Though the collection is not mentioned 
in the earlier chapters of the Acts, the order of the journey is 
mentioned. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end 
we read that ‘Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed 
through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After 
I have been there, I must also see Rome’ (Acts xix. 21). Part of 
this programme has been accomplished. At the time of writing 
St. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The allusions 


* On this collection see an excellent article by Mr. Rendall in Z&e Expositor, 
1893, ii. 321 ff. 


§ 4] TIME AND PLACE xxxvil 


which point to this would none of them taken separately be 
certain, but in combination they amount to a degree tf pro- 
bability which is little short of certainty. The bearer of the 
Epistle appears to be one Phoebe who is an active, perhaps an 
official member of the Church of Cenchreae, the harbour of 
Corinth (Rom. xvi. 1). The house in which St. Paul is staying, 
which is also the meeting-place of the local Church, belongs to 
Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23); and a Gaius St. Paul had baptized at 
Corinth (1 Cor.i. 14). He sends a greeting also from Erastus, 
who is described as ‘oeconomus’ or ‘treasurer’ of the city. The 
office is of some importance, and points to a city of some im- 
portance. This would agree with Corinth; and just at Corinth 
we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 20 that an Erastus was left behind on 
St. Paul’s latest journey—naturally enough if it was his home. 

The visit to Achaia then upon which these indications converge 
is that which is described in Acts xx. 2, 3. It occupied three. 
months, which on the most probable reckoning would fall at 
the beginning of the year 58. St. Paul has in his company at 
this time Timothy and Sosipater (or Sopater) who join in the 
greeting of the Epistle (Rom. xvi. 21) and are also mentioned 
in Acts xx. 4. Of the remaining four who send their greetings 
we recognize at least Jason of Thessalonica (Rom. xvi. 21; cf. 
Acts xvii. 6). Just the lightness and unobtrusiveness of all these 
mutual coincidences affixes to the works in which they occur 
the stamp of reality. 


The date thus clearly indicated brings the Epistle to the Romans into 
close connexion with the two Epistles to Corinthians, and less certainly with 
the Epistle to Galatians. We have seen how the collection for the Churches 
of Judaea is one of the links which bind together the first three. Many 
other subtler traces of synchronism in fhought-4nd style have been pointed 
out between all four (especially by Bp. Lightfoot in Journ. of Class. and 
Sacr. Philol. iii [1857], p. 289 ff.; also Galatians, p. 43 ff., ed. 2). The 
relative position of_1-and.2Corinthians and Romans is fixed and certain. 
If Romans was written in the early spring of A.D. 58, then 1 Corinthians 
would fall in the spring and 2 Corinthians in the autumn of A.D. 57". In 
regard to Galatians the data are not so decisive, and different views are held. 
The older opinion, and that which would seem to be still dominant in 
Germany (it is maintained by Lipsius writing in 1891), is that Galatians 
belongs to the early part of St. Panl’s long stay at Ephesus, A.D. 54 or 55. 
In England Bp. Lightfoot found a maniber of followers im bringing it into 
closer juxtaposition with Romans, about the winter_of A.D. 57-58. The 
question however has been recently reopened in two opposite directions: on 
the one hand by Dr. C. Clemen (Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe, Halle, 
1893), who would place it after Romans; and on the other hand by 





1 Jiilicher, in his recent Zinlettung, p. 62, separates the two Epistles to the 
Corinthians by an interval of eighteen months; nor can this opinion be at once 
ruled out of court, though it seems opposed to 1 Cor. xvi. 8, from which we 
gather that when he wrote the first Epistle St. Paul did not contemplate staying 
in Ephesus longer than the next succeeding Pentecost. 


XXXViii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [g 4 


Mr. F. Rendall in 7he Expositor for April, 1894 (p. 254 ff.), who would 
place it some years earlier. 

Clemen, who propounds a novel view of the chronology of St. Paul’s life 
generally, would interpose the Council of Jerusalem (which he identifies with 
the visit of Acts xxi and not with that of Acts xv) between Romans, which 
he assigns to the winter of A.D. 53 -54, and Galatians, which he places towards 
the end of the latter year’. His chief argument is that Galatians represents 
a more advanced and heated stage of the controversy with the Judaizers, and 
he accounts for this by the events which followed the Council (Gal. ii. 12 ff. ; 
i. 6 ff.). There is, however, much that is arbitrary in the whole of this 
reconstruction ; and the common view seems to us far more probable that 
the Epistle to the Romans marks rather the gradual subsidence of troubled 
waters than their first disturbing. There is more to be said for Mr. Rendall’s 
opinion that Galatians was written during the early part of St. Paul’s first 
visit to Corinth in the year 51 (or 52), The question is closely connect 
with the controversy reopened by Professor Ramsay as to the identity of the 
Galatian Churches. For those who see in them the Churches of South 
Galatia (Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) the earlier date 
may well seem preferable. If we take them to be the Churches of North 
Galatia (Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium), then the Epistle cannot be earlier 
than St. Paul's settlement at Ephesus on his third journey in the year 54. 
The argument which Lishop Lightfoot based on resemblances of thought and 
language between Galatians and Romans rests upon facts that are indisput- 
able, but does not carry with it any certain inference as to date. 


(2) Occaston. If the time and place of the Epistle are clear, 
the occasion of it is still clearer; St. Paul himself explains it 
in unmistakable language twice over. At the beginning of the 
Epistle (Rom. i. 10-15) he tells the Romans how much he has 
longed to pay them a visit; and now that the prospect has been 
brought near he evidently writes to prepare them for it. And 
at the end of the Epistle (ch. xu 22-33) he repeats his explanation 
detailing all his plans both for the near and for the more distant 
future, and telling them how he hopes to make his stay with them 
the most important stage of his journey to Spain. We know that 
his intention was fulfilled in substance but not in the manner 
of its accomplishment. He went up to Jerusalem and then 


1 Dr. Clemen places St. Paul’s long stay at Ephesus (2} years on his reckon- 
ing) in 50-52 A.D. In the course of it would fall our 1 Corinthians and two 
out of the three letters which are supposed to be combined in our 2 Corinthians 
(for this division there is really something of a case). He then inserts a third 
missionary journey, extending not over three months (as Acts xx. 3), but 
Over some two years in Macedonia and Greece. To this he-refers the last 
Corinthian letter (2 Cor. i-viii) and a genuine fragment of Ep. to Titus 
(Tit. iii. 12-14). Ep. to Romans is written from Corinth in the winter of 
A.D. 53-54. Then follow the Council at Jerusalem, the dispute at Antioch, 
Ep. to Galatians, and a fourth journey in Asia Minor, with another genuine 
fragment, 2 Tim. iv. 19-21. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest 
at Jerusalem in the year 58, Epp. to Phil., Col., Philem. and one or two more 
fragments of Past. Epp., the Apostle’s arrival at Rome in A.D. 61 and his 
death in A.D. 64. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to 
the Council of Jerusalem, and the estimate formed of the historical characte 
of the Acts. 


§ 4] OCCASION AND PURPOSE xxxix 


to Rome, but only after two yzars’ forcible detention, and as 
a prisoner awaiting his trial. 

(3) Purpose. A more complicated question meets ts when 
from the occasion or proximate cause of the Epistle to the Romans 
we pass to its purpose or ulterior cause. The Apostle’s reasons 
for writing to Rome lie upon the surface; his reasons for writing 
the particular letter he did write will need more consideration. 
No doubt there is a providence in it. It was willed that such 
a letter should be written for the admonition of after-ages. But 
through what psychological channels did that providence work ? 

Here we pass on to much debated ground; and it will perhaps 
help us if w. begin by presenting the opposing theories in as 
antithetical a form as possible. 

When the different views which have been held come to be 
examined, they will be found to be reducible to two main types, 
which differ not on a single point but on a number of co-ordinated 
points. One might be described as primarily historical, the other 
eal dogmatic; one directs attention mainly to the Church 
addressed, the other mainly to the writer; one adopts the view 

_of-a predominance of Jewish-Christian readers, the other pre- 
supposes readers who are predominantly Gentile Christians. 
~ Here again the epoch-making impulse came from Baur. It was 
Baur who first worked out a coherent theory, the essence of which 
was that it claimed to be historical. He argued from the analogy 
of the other Epistles which he allowed to be genuine. The cir- 
cumstances of the Corinthian Church are reflected as in a glass in 
the Epistles to the Corinthians; the circumstances of the Galatian 
Churches come out clearly from that to the Galatians. Did it not 
follow that the circumstances of the Roman Church might be _ 
directly inferred from the Epistle to the Romans, and that the” 
Epistle itself was written with deliberate reference to them? Why 
all this Jewish-sounding argument if the readers were not Jews? | 
Why these constant answers to objections if there was no one to™ 
object? The issues discussed were similar in many respects to 
those in the Epistle to the Galatians. In Galatia a fierce con- 
troversy was going on. Must it not therefore be assumed that 
there was a like controversy, only milder and more tempered, at 
Rome, and that the Apostle wished to deal with it in a manner 
correspondingly milder and more tempered? 

There was truth in all this; but it was truth to some extent 
one-sided and exaggerated. A little reflexion will show that the 
cases of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not exactly 
parallel to that of Rome. In Galatia St. Paul was dealing with 
a perfectly definite state of things in a Church which he himself had 
founded, and the circumstances of which he knew from within and 
hot merely by hearsay. At Corinth he had spent a still longet 


xl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS L§ & 


time; when he wrote he was not far distant; there had been 
frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle; 
and in the case of 1 Corinthians he had actually before him a letter 
containing a number of questions which he was requested to 
answer, while in that of 2 Corinthians he had a personal report 
brought to him by Titus. What could there be like this at Rome? 
The Church there St. Paul had not founded, had not even seen; 
and, if we are to believe Baur and the great majority of his followers, 
he had not even any recognizable correspondents to keep him 
informed about it. For by what may seem a strange inconsistency 
it was especially the school of Baur which denied the genuineness 
of ch. xvi, and so cut away a whole list of persons from one or 
other of whom St. Paul might have really learnt something about 
Roman Christianity. 

These contradictions were avoided in the older theory which 
prevailed before the time of Baur and which has not been without 
adherents, of whom the most prominent perhaps is Dr. Bernhard 
Weiss, since his day. According to this theory the main object of 
the Epistle is doctrinal; it is rather a theological treatise than 
a letter ; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central 
principles of the faith, and has but little reference to the circum- 
stances of the moment. 

It would be wrong to call this view—at least in its recent forms 
—unhistorical. It takes account of the situation as it presented 
itself, but looks at another side of it from that which caught the 
eye of Baur. The leading idea is no longer the position of the 
readers, but the position of the writer: every thing is made to turn 
on the truths which the Apostle wished to place on record, and for 
which he found a fit recipient in a Church which seemed to have so 
commanding a future before it. 

Let us try to do justice to the different aspects of the problem. 
The theories which have so far been mentioned, and others of 
which we have not yet spoken, are only at fault in so far as they 
are exclusive and emphasize some one point to the neglect of the 
rest. Nature is usually more subtle than art. A man of St. Paul’s 
ability sitting down to write a letter on matters of weight would be 
likely to have several influences present to his mind at once, and 
his language would be moulded now by one and now by another. 

Three factors may be said to have gone to the shaping of this 
letter of St. Paul’s. 

The first of these will be that which Baur took almost for the 
only one..“The Apostle had some real knowledge of the state of 
the Church to which he was writing. Here we see the importance 
of his connexion with Aquila and Prisca. His intercourse with 
them would probably give the first impulse to that wish which he 
tells us that he had entertained for many years to visit Rome in 


§4.] OCCASION AND PURPOSE xii 


person. When first he met them at Corinth they were newly 
arrived from the capital; he would hear from them of the state of 
things they left behind them; and a spark would be enough to 
fire his imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ 
and the Gospel in the seat of empire itself, We may well 
believe—if the speculations about Prisca are valid, and even with- 
out drawing upon these—that the two wanderers would keep up 
communication with the Christians of their home. And now, very 
probably at the instance of the Apostle, they had returned to 
prepare the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so 
valuable a link between St. Paul and the Church he had set his 
heart on visiting. Two of his most trusted friends are now on the 
spot, and they would not fail to report all that it was essential to 
the Apostle to know. He may have had other correspondents 
besides, but they would be the chief. ‘To this source we may look =| 
for what there is of local colour in the Epistle. If the argument is \/ 
addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews; if we catch 

a glimpse of parties in the Church, ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’; 
if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of 
the community (as in ch. xvi. 17-20)—it is from his friends in 
Rome that the Apostle draws his knowledge of the conditions with 
which he is dealing. 

The second factor which helps in determining the character of 7 
the Epistle has more to do with what it is not than with what it is: 
it prevents it from being as it was at one time described, ‘a com- 
pendium of the whole of Christian doctrine.’ The Epistle is not 
this, because like all St. Paul’s Epistles it implies a common basis 
of Christian teaching, those mapaddce:s as they are called elsewhere 
(« Cor. xi. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6), which the Apostle is able to 
take for granted as already known to his readers, and which he 
therefore thinks it unnecessary to repeat without special reason. 
He will not ‘lay again’ a foundation which is already laid. He 
will not speak of the ‘first principles’ of a Christian’s belief, but 
will ‘go on unto perfection.’ Hence it is that just the most funda- 
mental doctrines—the Divine Lordship of Christ, the value of His 
Death, the nature of the Sacraments—are assumed rather than 
stated or proved. Such allusions as we get to these are concerned 
not with the rudimentary but with the more developed forms of the 
doctrines in question. They nearly always add something to the 
common stock of teaching, give to it a profounder significance, 
or apply it in new and unforeseen directions. The last charge \ 

that could be brought against the Epistle would be that it consisted | 

of Christian commonplaces. It is one of the most original of / 

writings. No Christian can have read it for the first time “without 
feeling that he was introduced to heights and depths of Christianity 
of which he had never been conscious before. 


x 


\ 


— 


xiii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4 


For, lastly, the most powerful of all the influences which have 
shaped the contents of the Epistle is the experience of the writer. 
The main object which he has in view is really not far to seek. 
When he thought of visiting Rome his desire was to ‘have some 
fruit’ there, as in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. i. 13). He 
longed to impart to the Roman Christians some ‘ spiritual gift,’ 
such as he knew that he had the power of imparting (i. 113 XV. 
29). By this he meant the effect of his own personal presence, 
but the gift was one that could be exercised also in absence. He 
has exercised it by this letter, which is itself the outcome of a 
mvevpatixoy xadpioua, a word of instruction, stimulus, and warning, 
addressed in the first instance to the Church at Rome, and through 


‘it to Christendom for all time. 


The Apostle has reached another turning-point in his career. 
He is going up to Jerusalem, not knowing what will befall him 
there, but prepared for the worst. He is aware that the step which 
he is taking is highly critical and he has no confidence that he will 
escape with his life’. This gives an added solemnity to his utter- 
ance; and it is natural that he should cast back his glance over 
the years which had passed since he became a Christian and sum 
up the result as he felt it for himself. It is not exactly a conscious 
summing up, but it is the momentum of this past experience which 
guides his pen. 

Deep in the background of all his thought lies that one great 
event which brought him within the fold of Christ. For him it 
had been nothing less than a revolution ; and it fixed permanently 
his conception of the new forces which came with Christianity into 
the world. ‘To believe in Christ,’ ‘to be baptized into Christ,’ 
these were the watchwords; and the Apostle felt that they were 
pregnant with intense meaning. That new personal relation of 
the believer to his Lord was henceforth the motive-power which 
dominated the whole of his life. It was also met, as it seemed, ina 
marvellous manner from above. We cannot doubt that from his ¢on- 
version onwards St. Paul found himself endowed with extraordinary 
energies. Some of them were what we should call miraculous; 
but he makes no distinction between those which were miraculous 
and those which were not. He set them all down as miraculous 
in the sense of having a direct Divine cause. And when he looked 
around him over the Christian Church he saw that like endowments, 
energies similar in kind if inferior to his own in degree, were 


‘widely diffused. They were the characteristic mark of Christians, 


Partly they took a form which would be commonly described as 
supernatural, unusual powers of healing, unusual gifts of utterance, 
an unusual magnetic influence upon others; partly they consisted 


1 This is impressively stated in Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 4a ff. 


§ 4] OCCASION AND PURPOSE xlifi 


in a strange elation of spirit which made suffering and toil seem 
ligat and insignificant; but most of all the new impulse was moral 
in its working, it blossomed out in a multitude of attractive traits— 
‘love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
meekness, temperance. These St. Paul called ‘fruits of the 


Spirit.’ The act of faith on the part of man, the influence of the | 


Spirit (which was only another way of describing the influence of 
Christ Himself’) from the side of God, were the two outstanding 
facts which made the lives of Christians differ from those of other 
men. 

These are the postulates of Christianity, the forces to which the 
Apostle has to appeal for the solution of practical problems as they 
present themselves, His time had_ been very |: aken_up 
with such problems. There had been the great question as to 
the terms on which Gentiles were to be admitted to the new society. 
\On this head St. Paul could have no doubt. His own ruling 

rinciples, ‘faith’ and ‘the Spirit,’ made no distinction between 
Jew and Gentile; he had no choice but to contend for the equal 
ights of both—-a certain precedence might be yielded to the Jews 
as the chosen people of the Old Covenant, but that was all. 

This battle had been fought and won. But it left behind 
a question which was intellectually more troublesome—a question 
brought home by the actual effect of the preaching of Christianity, 
very largely welcomed and eagerly embraced by Gentiles, but as 
a rule spurned and rejected by the Jews—how it could be that 
Israel, the chosen recipient of the promises of the Old Testament, 
should be excluded from the benefit now that those promises came 
to be fulfilled. Clearly this question belongs to the later reflective 
stage of the controversy relating to Jew and Gentile. The active 
contending for Gentile liberties would come first, the philosophic 
or theological assignment of the due place of Jew and Gentile in 
tthe Divine scheme would naturally come afterwards, This more 

_ advanced stage has now been reached; the Apostle has made up 
| his mind on the whole series of questions at issue; and he takes 
the opportunity of writing to the Romans at the very centre of the 
empire, to lay down calmly and deliberately the conclusions to 
which he has come. 

The Epistle is the ripened _fruit_of the thought and struggles of 
the eventful years by which it had been preceded. It is no merely 
abstract | disquisition but a letter full of direct human interest in the 
persons to whom it is written; it is a letter which contains here 
and there side-glances at particular local circumstances, and at 
least one emphatic warning (ch. xvi. 17-20) against a danger 
which had not reached the Church as yet, but any day might reach 


' See the notes on ch. viii. 9-17; compare also ch. vi. I-14 


a 


xliv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 4 


it, and the full urgency of which the Apostle knew only too well ; 
but the main theme of the letter is the gathering in of the harvest, 
at once of the Church’s history since the departure of its Master, 
and of the individual history of a single soul, that one soul which 
under God had had the most active share in making the course of 
external events what it was. St. Paul set himself to give the 
Roman Church of his best; he has given it what was perhaps in 
some ways too good for it—more we may be sure than it would be 
able to digest and assimilate at the moment, but just for that very 
reason a body of teaching which eighteen centuries of Christian 
interpreters have failed to exhaust. Its richness in this respect is 
due to the incomparable hold which it shows on the essential 
principles of Christ’s religion, and the way in which, like the 
Bible in general, it pierces through the conditions of a particular 
_ time and place to the roots of things which are permanent and 
universal. 


§ 5. THE ARGUMENT. 


In the interesting essay in which, discarding all tradition, he 
seeks to re-interpret the teaching of St. Paul directly from the 
standpoint of the nineteenth century, Matthew Arnold maps out the 
contents of the Epistle as follows :— 

‘If a somewhat pedantic form of expression may be forgiven for 
the sake of clearness, we may say that of the eleven first chapters 
of the Epistle to the Romans—the chapters which convey Paul’s 
theology, though not . . . with any scholastic purpose or in any 
formal scientific mode of exposition—of these eleven chapters, the 
first, second, and third are, in a scale of importance, fixed by 
a scientific criticism of Paul’s line of thought, sub-primary; the 
fourth and fifth are secondary; the sixth and eighth are primary; 
the seventh chapter is sub-primary; the ninth, tenth, and eleventh 
chapters are secondary. Furthermore, to the contents of the 
separate chapters themselves this scale must be carried on, so far as 
to mark that of the two great primary chapters, the sixth and 
eighth, the eighth is primary down only to the end of the twenty- 
eighth verse ; from thence to the end it is, however, eloquent, yet 
for. the purpose of a scientific criticism of Paul’s essential theology 
only secondary’ (S¢. Paul and Protestantism, p. 92 f.). 

This extract may serve as a convenient starting-point for our 
examination of the argument: and it may conduce to clearness of 
apprehension if we complete the summary analysis of the Epistle 
given by the same writer, with the additional advantage of presenting 
it in his fresh and bright manner ;— 


Vv 


$6] <THE ARGUMENT xiv 


* The first chapter is to the Gentiles—its purport is: You have 
not righteousness. The second is to the Jews—its purport 
is: No more have you, though you think you have. The third 
chapter assumes faith in Christ as the one source of right- 
eousness for all men. The fourth chapter gives to the notion 
of righteousness through faith the sanction of the Old Testament 
and of the history of Abraham. The fifth insists on the causes for 
thankfulness and exultation in the boon of righteousness through 
faith in Christ; and applies illustratively, with this design, the 
history of Adam. The sixth chapter comes to the all-important 
question: “ What is that faith in Christ which I, Paul, mean? ”— 
and answers it. The seventh illustrates and explains the answer. 
But the eighth down to the end of the twenty-eighth verse, develops 
and completes the answer. The rest of the eighth chapter expresses 
the sense of safety and gratitude which the solution is fitted to 
inspire. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters uphold the second 
chapter’s thesis—so hard to a Jew, so easy to us—that righteous- 
ness is not by the Jewish law; but dwell with hope and joy on a 
final result of things which is to be favourable to Israel’ (zdzd. p. 93). 

Some such outline as this would be at the present stage of in- 
vestigation generally accepted. It is true that Baur threw the 
centre of gravity upon chapters ix—xi, and held that the rest of the 
Epistle was written up to these: but this view would now on 
almost all hands be regarded as untenable. The problem discussed 
in these chapters doubtless weighed heavily on the Apostle’s mind ; 
in the circumstances under which he was writing it was doubtless 
a problem of very considerable urgency; but for all that it is 
a problem which belongs rather to the circumference of St. Paul’s 
thought than to the centre; it is not so much a part of his funda- 
mental teaching as a consequence arising from its collision with an 
unbelieving world. 

On this head the scholarship of the present day would be on the 
side of Matthew Arnold. It points, however, to the necessity, in 
any attempt to determine what is primary and what is not primary 
in the argument of the Epistle, of starting with a clear understanding 
of the point of view from which the degrees of relative importance 
are to be assigned. Baur’s object was historical—to set the 
Epistle in relation to the circumstances of its composition. On 
that assumption his view was partially—though still not more than 
partially—justified. Matthew Arnold’s object on the other hand 
was what he calls ‘a scientific criticism of Paul’s thought’; by 
which he seems to mean (though perhaps he was not wholly clear 
in his own mind) an attempt to discriminate in it those elements 
which are of the highest permanent value. It was natuial that he 
should attach the greatest imporlance to those elements in particular 
which seemed to be capable o1 direct personal verification, From 


xlvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 5 


this point of view we need not question his assignment of a primary 
significance to chapters vi and viii. His reproduction of the thought 
of these chapters is the best thing in his book, and we have drawn 
upon it ourselves in the commentary upon them (p. 163 f.). There 
is more in the same connexion that well deserves attentive study. 
But there are other portions of the Epistle which are not capable of 
verification precisely in the same manner, and yet were of primary 
importance to St. Paul himself and may be equally of primary 
importance to those of us who are willing to accept his testimony 
in spiritual things which lie beyond the reach of our personal 
experience. Matthew Arnold is limited by the method which he 
applies—and which others would no doubt join with him in 
applying—to the subjective side of Christianity, the emotions and 
efforts which it generates in Christians. But there is a further 
question how and why they came to be generated. And in the 
answer which St. Paul would give, and which the main body of 
Christians very largely on his authority would also give to that 
question, he and they alike are led up into regions where direct 
human verification ceases to be possible. 

It is quite true that ‘faith in Christ’ means attachment to Christ, 
a strong emotion of love and gratitude. But that emotion is not 
confined, as we say, to ‘the historical Christ,’ it has for its object 
not only Him who walked the earth as ‘ Jesus of Nazareth’; it is 
directed towards the same Jesus ‘crucified, risen and ascended to 
the right hand of God.’ St. Paul believed, and we also believe, 
that His transit across the stage of our earth was accompanied by 
consequences in the celestial sphere which transcend our faculties. 
We cannot pretend to be able to verify them as we can verify that 
which passes in our own minds. And yet a certain kind of indirect 
verification there is. The thousands and tens of thousands of 
Christians who have lived and died in the firm conviction of the 
truth of these supersensual realities, and who upon the strength of 
them have reduced their lives to a harmonious unity superseding 
the war of passion, do really afford no slight presumption that the 
beliefs which have enabled them. to do this are such as the Ruler of 
the universe approves, and such as aptly fit into the eternal order. 
Whatever the force of this presumption to the outer world, it is one 
which the Christian at least will cherish, 

We therefore do not feel at liberty to treat as anything less than 
primary that which was certainly primary to St. Paul. We entirely 
accept the view that chapters vi and viii are primary, but we also 
feel bound to place by their side the culminating verses of chapter 
iii, The really fundamental passages in the Epistle we should say 
were, ch.i. 16, 17, which states the problem, and iii. 21-26, vi. I-14, 
viii. 1-30 (rather than 1-28), which supply its solution. The 
problem is, How is man to become righteous in the sight of God? 


§ 6.) THE ARGUMENT xvii 


And the answer is (1) by certain great redemptive acts on the 
part of God which take effect in the sphere above, though their 
consequences are felt throughout the sphere below; (2) through 
a certain ardent apprehension of these acts and of their Author 
Christ, on the part of the Christian; and (3) through his con- 
tinued self-surrender to Divine influences poured out freely and 
unremittingly upon him. 

It is superfluous to say that there is nothing whatever that is new 
in this statement, It does but reproduce the belief, in part implicit 
rather than explicit, of the Early Church; then further defined and 
emphasized more vigorously on some of its sides at the Reformation ; 
and lastly brought to a more even balance (or what many would 
fain make a more even balance) by the Church of our own day. Of 
course it is liable to be impugned, as it is impugned by the 
attractive writer whose words have been quoted above, in the 
interest of what is thought to be a stricter science. But whatever 
the value in itself of the theory which is substituted for it, we may 
be sure that it does not adequately represent the mind of St. Paul. 
In the present commentary our first object is to do justice to this. 
How it is afterwards to be worked up into a complete scheme of 
religious belief, it lies beyond our scope to consider. 


For the sake of the student it may be well to draw out the 
contents of the Epistle in a tabular analytical form. St. Paul, as 
Matthew Arnold rightly reminds us, is no Schoolman, and his 
method is the very reverse of all that is formal and artificial. But 
it is undoubtedly helpful to set before ourselves the framework of 
his thought, just as a knowledge of anatomy conduces to the better 
understanding of the living human frame. 


I—Introduction (i. 1-15). 
a. The Apostolic Salutation (i. 1-7). 
8. St. Paul and the Roman Church (i. 8-15). 


Il.—Doctrinal. 
' THE GREAT THESIS. Problem: How is Righteousness to be attained? 
Answer: Not by man’s work, but by God’s gift, through Faith, or 
loyal attachment to Christ (i. 16, 17). 


A. Righteousness as a state or condition in the sight of God (Justification) 
(i 18=v. 21). 
1. Righteousness not hitherto attained (i. 18-iii. 20). 
[Rather, by contrast, a scene which bespeaks impending Wrath]. 
@. Failure of the Gentile (i. 18-32). 
(i.) Natural Religion (i. 18-20) ; 
(ii.) deserted for idolatry (i. 21-25) ; 
iii.) hence judicial abandonment to abominable sins (26, 27), to 
every kind of moral depravity (28-31), even to perversion of 
conscience (32). 
@ [Transitional]. Future judgement without respect of persons such as 
Jew ox Gentile (ii. 1-16). 


xviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. 


(i.) Jewish critic and Gentile sinner in the same position (ii. 1-4). 

(ii.) Standard of judgement : deeds, not privileges (ii. 5-11). 

(iii.) Rule of judgement: Law of Moses for the Jew; Law of Con- 
science for the Gentile (ii. 12-16). 

y. Failure of the Jew (ii. 17-29). Profession and reality, as regards 
(i.) Law (ii. 17-24); 
(ii.) Circumcision (ii. 25-29). 
8. [Parenthetic]. Answer to casuistical objections from Jewish stand- 
point (ili. 1-8). 
(i.) The ae advantage as recipient of Divine Promises 
(iii. 1, 2); 

(ii.) which promises are not invalidated by Man’s unfaithfulness 
(ili. 3, 4). 

(iii.) Yet God’s greater glory no excuse for human sin (iii. 5-8). 

«. Universal failure to attain to righteousness and earn acceptance 
illustrated from Scripture (iii. 9-20). 
a. Consequent Exposition of New System (iii. 21-31): 
@(i.) in its relation to Law, independent of it, yet attested by it 
(21); 

(ii.) in its universality, as the free gift of God (22-24) ; 

(iii.) in the method of its realization through the propitiatory Death 
of Christ, which occupies under the New Dispensation the 
same place which Sacrifice, especially the ceremonies of the 
Day of Atonement, occupied under the Old (25); 

(iv.) in its final cause—the twofold manifestation of God's righteous- 
ness, at once asserting itself against sin and conveying pardon 
to the sinner (26). 

8. Preliminary note of two main consequences from this: 
(i.) Boasting excluded (27, 28); 
(ii.) Jew and Gentile alike accepted (29-31). 


g. Relation of this New System to O. T. considered im reference to the 
crucial case of Abraham (iv. I-25). 
(i.) Abraham’s acceptance (like that described by David) turned 
on Faith, not Works (iv. 1-8) ; 
(ii.) nor Circumcision (iv. 9-!2) 
[so that there might be nothing to prevent him from 
being the spiritual father of uncircumcised as well as 
circumcised (11, 12)], 
(iii.) nor Law, the antithesis of Promise (iv. 13-17) 
[so that he might be the spiritual father of a// believers, 
not of those under the Law only]. 
(iv.) Abraham’s Faith, a type of the Christian’s (iv. 17-25): 
[he too believed in a birth from the dead]. 
4 Blissful effects of Righteousness by Faith (v. I-21). 
a. (i.) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant hope of final sal- 
vation (v. I-4). 
(ii.) That hope guaranteed @ fortioré by the Love displayed im 
Christ's Death for sinners (v. 5-11). 
@. Contrast of these effects with those of Adam’s Fall (v. ra—a1) : 
(i.) like, in the transition from one to all (12-14); 
(i.) unlike, in that where one brought sin, condemnation, death, the 
other brought grace, a declaration of unmerited righteous- 
ness, life (15-17). 
(iii) Summary. Relations of Fall, Law, Grace (18—a1) 
[The Fall brought sin; Law increased it; but Grace more 
than cancels the ill effects of Law]. 


$5.] THE ARGUMENT xix 


B. Progressive Righteousness in the Christian (Sanctification) (vi—viii). 

1. Reply to further casuistical objection: ‘If more sin means mure 
grace, why not go on sinning?’ 

The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin, 
and union with the risen Christ. The Christian there- 
fore cannot, must not, sin (vi. I-14). 
g. The Christian’s Release: what it is, and what it is not: shown by 
two metaphors. 
a. Servitude and emancipation (vi. 15-23). 
8. The marriage-bond (vii. 1-6). 
[The Christian’s old self dead to the Law with Christ; so thai 
he is henceforth free to live with Him]. 

g. Judaistic objection from seeming disparagement of Law: met by an 
analysis of the moral conflict in the soul. Law is impotent. 
and gives an impulse or handle to sin, but is not itself sinful 
(vii. 7-24). The conflict ended by the interposition of 
Christ (25). 

4. Perspective of the Christian’s New Career (viii). 

The Indwelling Spirit. 
a. Failure of the previous system made good by Christ’s Incarnation 
and the Spirit’s presence (viii. 1-4). 
8. The new wgime contrasted with the old—the régime of the Spirit 
with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii. 5-9). 
y. The Spirit’s presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral 
resurrection (viii. 10-13) ; 
& also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son’s relation, 
and will enter upon a son’s inheritance (viii. 14-17). 
«. That glorious inheritance the object of creation’s yearning (viii. 
18-22) ; 
and of the Christian’s hope (viii. 23-25). 
9. Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit’s intercession (viii. 26, 27) ; 
6. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which 
God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. 28-30). 
t. Inviolable security of the Christian in dependence upon God’s 
favour and the love of Christ (viii. 31-39). 


C. Problem of Israel’s Unbelief. The Gospel in history (ix, x, xi). The 
~ “rejection of the Chosen People a sad contrast to its high destiny and 
privileges (ix. 1-5). 
I. Justice of the Rejection (ix. 6-29). 
a. The si ae of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promises 
(ix. 6-13) ; 
8. nor with the Divine Justice (ix. 14-29). 
(i.) The absoluteness of God’s choice shown from the O.T. (ix. 
14-18). 
(ii.) A necessary deduction from His position as Creator (ix. 
19-23). 
(iii.) The alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved 
and foretold in Scripture (ix. 24-29). 
a. Cause of the Rejection. 
a, Israel sought righteousness by Works instead of Faith, in their own 
way and not in God’s way (ix. 30-x. 4). 
And this although God’s method was— 
(i.) Not difficult and remote but near and easy (x. 5-10); 
(ii.) Within the reach of all, Jew and Gentile alike (x. 11-13). 
8. Nor can Israel plead in defence want of opportunity or warning— 
(i.) The Gospel has been fully and universally preached (x. 14-18). 


i EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 5. 


(ii.) Israel had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that they 
would reject God’s Message (x. 19-21). 
3- Mitigating considerations. The purpose of God (xi). 

@. The Unbelief of Israel is now as in the past only partial (xi. 1-10). 

B. It is only temporary— 

(i.) Their fall has a special purpose—the introduction of the 
Gentiles (xi. 11-15). 

(ii.) That Isracl will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock 
from which it comes (xi. 16-24). 

y- In all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards 
through seeming severity, to a beneficent result —the final 
restoration of all (ai. 25-31). 

Doxology (xi. 33-36). 
IlI.—Practical and Hortatory. 
(1) The Christian sacrifice (xii. 1, 2). 
(2) The Christian as a member of the Church (xii. 3-8). 
(3). The Christian in his relation to others (xii. 9-21). 
The Christian’s vengeance (xii. 19-21). 
(4) Church and State (xiii. 1-7). 
(5) The Christian’s one debt; the law of love (xiii. 8-10). 
The day approaching (xiii. 11-14). 
(6) Toleration; the strong and the weak (xiv. 1-xv. 6), 
The Jew and the Gentile (xv. 7-13). 
IV.—Epilogue. 
a. Personal explanations. Motive of the Epistle. Proposed visit to 
Rome (xv. 14-33). 
8. Greetings to various persons (xvi. I-16). 
A warning (xvi. 17-20). 
Postscript by the Apostle’s companions and amanuensis (xvi. 
21-23). 
Benediction and Doxology (xvi. 24-27). 

It is often easiest to bring out the force and strength of an 
argument by starting from its conclusion, and we possess in the 
doxology at the end of the Epistle a short summary made by 
St. Paul himself of its contents. The question of its genuineness 
has been discussed elsewhere, and it has been shown in the 
commentary how clearly it refers to all the leading thoughts of the 
Epistle ; it remains only to make use of it to help us to understand 
the argument which St. Paul is working out and the conclusion to 
which he is leading us. 

The first idea which comes prominently before us is that of ‘the 
Gospel’; it meets us in the Apostolic salutation at the beginning, 
in the statement of the thesis of the Epistle, in the doxology at the 
end where it is expanded in the somewhat unusual form ‘ according 
to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ.’ So again in 
xi. 28 it is incidentally shown that what St. Paul is describing is the 
_ method or plan of the Gospel. This idea of the Gospel then is 
a fundamental thought of the Epistle ; and it seems to mean this. 
There are two competing systems or plans of life or salvation 
before St. Paul’s mind. The one is the old Jewish system, a know- 
ledge of which is presupposed ; the other is the Christian system, 


§5.] THE ARGUMENT li 


a knowledge of which again is presupposed. St. Paul is, not 
expounding the Christian religion, he is writing to Christians: 
what he aims at expounding is the meaning of the new system. 
This may perhaps explain the manner in which he varies between 
the expressions ‘the Gospel,’ or ‘ the Gospel of God,’ or ‘ the Gospel 
of Jesus Christ,’ and ‘my Gospel.’ The former represents the 
Christian religion as recognized and preached by all, the latter 
represents.his own personal exposition of its plan and meaning. 
The mair purpose of the argument then.is an explanation of the 
meaning of the new Gospel of Jesus Christ, as succeeding to and | 
taking the place of the old method, but also in a sense as embracing “ 
and continuing it. 

St: Paul begins then with a theological description of the new 
method. He shows the need for it, he explains what it is—emphasiz- 
ing its distinctive features in contrast to those of the old system, and 
at the same time proving that it is the necessary and expected out- 
come of that old system. He then proceeds to describe the work- 
ing of this system in the Christian life; and lastly he vindicates 
for it its true place in history. The universal character of the new _ 
Gospel has been already emphasized, he must now trace the plan 
by which it is to attain this universality. The rejection of the Jews, 
the calling of the Gentiles, are both steps in this process and 
necessary steps. But the method and plan pursued in these cases 
and partially revealed, enable us to learn, if we have faith to do 
so, that ‘mystery which has been hidden from the foundation 
of-the.world, but which has always guided the course of human 
history—the purpose of God to ‘sum up all things in Christ.’ 

If this point has been made clear, it will enable us to bring out 
the essential unity and completeness of the argument of the 
Epistle. We do not agree as we have explained above with the 
opinion of Baur, revived by Dr. Hort, that chap. ix—xi represent 
the essential part of the Epistle, to which all the earlier part is but 
an introduction. That is certainly a one-sided view. But Dr. 
Hort’s examination of the Epistle is valuable as reminding us that 
neither are these chapters an appendix accidentally added which 
might be omitted without injuring St. Paul’s argument and plan. 

We can trace incidentally the various difficulties, partly raised by 
opponents, partly suggested by his own thought, which have helped 
to shape different portions of the Epistle. We are able to analyze 
and separate the difierent stages in the argument more accurately 
and distinctly than in any other of St. Paul’s writings. But this 
must not blind us to the iact that the whole is one great argument; 
the purpose of which is to explain the Gospel of God in Jesus the 
Messiah, and to show its efiects on human life, and in the history 
of the race, and thus to vindicate for it the right to be considered 
the ultimate and final revelation 01 God’s purpose for mankind. 

d 


lii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. 


§ 6. LANGUAGE AND STYLE 


(1) Language’. It will seem at first sight to the uninitiated 
reader a rather strange paradox that a letter addressed to the 
capital of the Western or Latin world should be written in Greek. 
Yet there is no paradox, either to the classical scholar who is 
acquainted with the history of the Early Empire, or to the ecclesias- 
tical historian who follows the fortunes of the Early Church. Both 
are aware that for fully two centuries and a half Greek was the 
predominant language if not of the city of Rome as a whole yet of 
large sections of its inhabitants, and in particular of those sections 
among which was to be sought the main body of the readers of 
the Epistle. 

The early history of the Church of Rome might be said to fall 
into three periods, of which the landmarks would be (1) the appear- 
ance of the first Latin writers, said by Jerome* to be Apollonius 
who suffered under Commodus in the year 185, and whose 
Apology and Acts have been recently recovered in an Armenian 
Version and edited by Mr. Conybeare’, and Victor, an African by 
birth, who became Bishop of Rome about 189 a.p. (2) Next 
would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable 
body of Latin literature, the writings of Novatian and the corre- 
spondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. 
(3) Then, lastly, there would be the definite Latinizing of the capital 
of the West which followed upon the transference of the seat of 
empire to Constantinople dating from 330 a.D. 

(1) The evidence of Juvenal and Martial refers to the latter half of the 
first century. Juvenal speaks with indignation of the extent to which Rome 
was being converted into ‘a Greek city *.’ Martial regards ignorance of Greek 
as a mark of rusticity’, Indeed, there was a double tendency which em- 
braced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand 
among slaves and in the trading classes there were swarms of Greeks and 
Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was 
the fashion to speak Greek; children were taught it by Greek nurses; and in 
after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation *. 


For the Jewish colony we have the evidence of the inscriptions. Out of 
thirty-eight collected by Schiirer’ no less than thirty are Greek and eight only 


1 The question of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discussed 
and the evidence for it set forth, but the classical treatment of the subject is by 
the late Dr. C. P. Caspari, Professor at Christiania, in an Excursus of 200 
pages to vol. iii. of his work Qmel/en zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols (Chris- 
tiania, 1875). 

? De Vir. Ii. \iii. Tertullianus presbyter wune demum primus post Victorem 
a Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. 

° Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), p. 29 ff. 

* Juv. Sat. iii. 60 f.; cf. vi. 187 ff. 5 Epig. xiv. 58. 

® Caspari, Quellen zum Taufsymbol, iii. 286 f. 

' Gemeindeverfassung, p. 33 ff. Vhe inscriptions referred to are all from 
Roman sites. There is also one in Greek from Portus. 


$6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE liii 


Latin and if one of the Greek inscriptions is in Latin characters, conversely 
three of the Latin are in Greek characters. There do not seem to be any in 
Hebrew’. 

Of Christian inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin would seem to be 
about1:2. But the great mass of these would belong to a period later than 
that of which we are speaking. De Rossi? estimates the number for the period 
between M. Aurelius and Septimius Severus at about 160, of which something 
like half would be Greek. Beyond this we can hardly go. 

But as to the Christian Church there is a quantity of other evidence. The 
bishops of Rome from Linus to Eleutherus (c. 174-189 A.D.) are twelve in 
number: of these not more than three (Clement, Sixtus I= Xystus, Pius) bear 
Latin names. But although the names of Clement and Pius are Latin the 
extant Epistle of Clement is written in Greek; we know also that Hermas, 
the author of ‘ The Shepherd,’ was the brother of Pius °, and he wrote in Greek. 
Indeed all the literature that we can in any way connect with Christian Rome 
down to the end of the reign of M. Aurelius is Greek. Besides the works of 
Clement and Hermas we have still surviving the letter addressed to the Church 
at Rome by Ignatius; and later in the period, the letter written by Soter 
(c. 166-174 A.D.) to the Corinthian Church was evidently in Greek*. Justin 
and Tatian who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek ; so too did Rhodon, 
a pupil of Tatian’s at Rome who carried on their tradition’. Greek was the 
language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visits to Rome of shorter 
duration. A number of Gnostic writers established themselves there and used 
Greek for the vehicle of their teaching : so Cerdon, Marcion, and Valentinus, 
who were all in Rome about 140 A.D. Valentinus left behind a considerable 
school, and the leading representatives of the ‘Italic’ branch, Ptolemaeus 
and Heracleon, both wrote in Greek. We may assume the samé thing of the 
other Gnostics combated by Justin and Irenaeus. Irenaeus himself spent some 
time at Rome in the Episcopate of Eleutherus, and wrote his great work 
in Greek. 

To this period may also be traced back the oldest form of the Creed of 
the Roman Church now known as the Apostles’ Creed®. This was in Greek. 
And there are stray Greek fragments of Western Liturgies which ultimately 
go back-to the same place and time. Such would be the Hymnus angelicus 
(Luke ii. 14) repeated in Greek at Christmas, the 7rishagion, Kyrie eletson 
and Christe eletson. On certain set days (at Christmas, Easter, Ember days, 
and some others) lections were read in Greek as well as Latin; hymns were 
occasionally sung in Greek; and at the formal committal of the Creed to the 
candidates for baptism (the so-called 7raditzo and Redditio Symbolt) both 
the Apostles’ Creed (in its longer and shorter forms) and the Nicene were 


* Comp. also Berliner, i. 54. * Ap. Caspari, p. 303. 

§ Pius is described in the Liber Pontificalis as matzone [talus . . . de civitate 
Aquileia; but there is reason to think that Hermas was a native of Arcadia. 
The assignments of nationality to the earliest bishops are of very doubtful 
value. 

* It was to be kept in the archives and read on Sundays like the letter of 
Clement (Eus. #. Z. IV. xxiii. 11). 

5 Kus. Z. Z. V. xiii. 1. 

6 It was in pursuit of the origin of this Creed that Caspari was drawn into 
his elaborate researches. It is generally agreed that it was-in use at Rome by 
the middle of the second century. ‘Lhe main question at the present moment 
is whether it was also composed there, and if not whence it came. Caspari 
would derive it from Asia Minor and the circle of St. John. This is a problem 
which we may look to have solved by Dr. Kattenbusch of Giessen, who ia 
continuing Caspari’s lahours (Das <Apostolische Symbol, Bd. J. Leipzig, 


1894). 


liv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. 


recited and the questions put first in Greek and then in latin’. These are 
all survivals of Koman usage at the time when the Church was bilingual. 

(2) The dates of Apollonius and of Bp. Victor are fixed, but rather more 
uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian work in 
Latin, the Octavius of Minucius Felix. This has been much debated, but 
opinion seems to be veering round to the earlier date*, which would bring him 
into near proximity to Apollonius, perhaps at the end of the reign of 
M. Aurelius. The period which then begins and extends from ¢. 180-250 A.D. 
shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. The two prominent writers, 
Hippolytus and Caius, still make use of Greek. The grounds perhaps pre- 
ponderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. But at the 
beginning of the period we have Minucius Felix and at the end Novatian, 
and Latin begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops. The 
glimpse which we get of the literary activity of the Church of Rome through 
the letters and other writings preserved among the works of Cyprian shows us 
at last Latin in possession of the field. 

(3) The Hellenizing character of Roman Christianity was due in the first 
instance to the constant intercourse between Rome and the East. In the 
troubled times which followed the middle of the third century, with the decay 
of wealth and trade, and Gothic piracies breaking up the fax Romana on the 
Aegean, this intercourse was greatly interrupted. Thus Greek influences lost 
their strength. The Latin Church, Rome reinforced by Africa, had now 
a substantial literature of its own. Under leaders like Tertullian, Cyprian, 
and Novatian it had begun to develop its proper individuality. It could 
stand and walk alone without assistance from the East. And a decisive 
impulse was given to its independent career by the founding of Constantinople. 
The stream set from that time onwards towards the Bosphorus and no longer 
towards the Tiber. Rome ceases to be the centre of the Empire to become 
in a still more exclusive sense the capital of the West. 


(2) Style. The Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul present 
a_considerable diversityof style. To such an extent is this the 
case that the question is seriously raised whether they can have had 
the same author. Of all the arguments urged on the negative 
side this from style is the most substantial ; and whatever decision 
we come to on the subject there remains a problem of much 
complexity and difficulty. 

It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fall into four groups 
which are connected indeed with each other, but at the same time 
stand out with much distinctness. These groups are: 1, 2 Thess.; 
Gal., 1, 2 Cor., Rom.; Phil., Col., Eph., Philem.; Past. Epp. The 
four Epistles of the second group hang very closely together; 
those of the third group subdivide into two pairs, Phil. Philem. on 
the one hand, and Eph. Col. on the other. It is hard to dissociate 
Col. from Philem.; and the very strong presumption in favour of 
the genuineness of the latter Epistle reacts upon the former. The 
tendency of critical inquiry at the present moment is in favour of 
Colossians and somewhat less decidedly in favour of Ephesians. 
It is, for instance, significant that Jiilicher in his recent Zinleclung 


1 More precise and full details will be found in Caspari’s Excursus, Op. ett, 
p. 466 ff. 
3 Kriiger, A/tchristl. Lit. p. 88. 


§ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE ly 


(Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig, 1894) sums up rather on this side of 
the question than the other. We believe that this points fo what 
will be the ultimate verdict. But in the matter of style it must be 
confessed that Col. and Eph.—and more especially Eph.—stand at 
the furthest possible remove from Romans. We may take Eph. 
and Rom. as marking the extreme poles of difference within the 
Epistles claimed for St. Paul’. Any other member of the second 
group would do as well; but as we are concerned specially with 
Rom., we may institute a comparison with it. 

The difference is not so much a difference of ideas and of 
vocabulary as a difference of structure and composition. There are, 
it is true, a certain number of new and peculiar expressions in the 
later Epistle ; but these are so balanced by points of coincidence, 
and the novel element has so much of the nature of simple addi- 
tion rather than contrariety, that to draw a conclusion adverse to 
St. Paul’s authorship would certainly not be warranted. The sense 
of dissimilarity reaches its height when we turn from the materials 
(if we may so speak) of the style to the way in which they are 
put together. The discrepancy lies not in the anatomy but in the 
surface distribution of light and shade, in the play of feature, in 
the temperament to which the two Epistles seem te give expression. 
We will enlarge a little on this point, as the contrast may help us 
to understand the individuality of the Epistle to the Romans. 

This Epistle, like all the others of the group, is characterized 
by a remarkable energy and vivacity. It is calm in the sense 
that it is not-aggressive"and that the rush of words is always well 
under control. Still there is a rush of words, rising repeatedly to 
passages of splendid eloquence; but the eloquence is spontaneous, 
the outcome of strongly moved feeling ; there is nothing about it 
of laboured oratory. The language is rapid, terse, incisive; the 
argument is conducted by a quick cut and thrust of dialectic; it 
reminds us of a fencer with his eye always on his antagonist. 

We shut the Epistle to the Romans and we open that to the 
Ephesians ; how great is the contrast! We cannot speak here of 
vivacity, hardly of energy; if there is energy it is deep down 
below the surface. The rapid argumentative cut and thrust is 
gone. In its place we have a slowly-moving onwards-advancing 
mass, like a glacier working its way inch by inch down the valley. 
The periods are of unwieldy length; the writer seems to stagger 
under his load. He has weighty truths to express, and he struggles 
to express them—not without success, but certainly with little 
flexibility or ease of composition. The truths unfolded read like 
abstract truths, ideal verities, ‘laid up in the heavens’ rather than 
embodying themselves in the active controversies of earth. 


1 The difference between these Epistles on the side we are considering ia 
greater (e. g.) than that between Romans and the Pastorals. 


lvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. 


There is, as we shall see, another side. We have perhaps 
exaggerated the opposition for the sake of making the difference 
clear. When we come to look more closely at the Epistle to the 
Romans we shall find in it not a few passages which tend in the 
direction of the characteristics of Ephesians ; and when we examine 
the Epistle to the Ephesians we shall find in it much to remind us 
of characteristics of Romans. We will however leave the com- 
parison as it has been made for the moment, and ask ourselves 
what means we have of explaining it. Supposing the two Epistles 
to be really the work of the same man, can the difference between 
them be adequately accounted for? 


There is always an advantage in presenting proportions to the eye and 
reducing them to some sort of numerical estimate. This can be done in 
the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number of 
longer pauses. This is done below for the two Epistles, Romans and Ephe- 
sians. The standard used is that of the Revisers’ Greek Text, and the 
estimate of length is based on the number of orixo: or printed lines. It 
will be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter :— 


ROMANS. 

orixot. (*) (.) @ 

Ch. L. 64 13 14 ~ 
II 51 14 7 8 
Ill 47 20 1a 16 
IV 45 6 14 7 
af 47 6 15 _ 
VL 42 8 14 8 
VII 49 16 20 5 
VIII jo 17 26 14 
Ix 55 8 19 10 
X. 37 6 16 9 
XI. 63 16 a7 II 
Totalfordoctrinal portion 570 130 184 83 

—_ —_— 
402 
XII 36 14 12 = 
XIII. 29 II 15 I 
XIV. 41 II 37 3 
XV. 63 8 24 —_ 
XVI 50 7 28 a 
Total for the Epistle 789 181 ago 92 
—<&<$<___—_—_—— 
563 


Here the proportion of major points to ozixo: is for the doctrinal chap- 
ters 402:570 = (approximately) 1 in 1-4; and for the whole Epistle not 
very different, 563:789 =1 in 1-418. The proportion of interrogative 
sentences is for the whole Epistle, 92: 789, or I in 8-6; for the doctrinal 
chapters only, 88:570, or I in 6-5; and for the practical portion only, 
42219, or1 in 55. ‘This last item is instructive, because it shows how very 


1 The counting of these is approximate, anything over half a line being 
reckoned as a whole line, and anything less than half a line not reckoned. 


§ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Wii 


greatly, even in the same Epistle, the amount of interrogation varies with 
the subject-matter. We also observe that in two even of the doctrinal chap- 
ters interrogative sentences are wanting. They lie indeed in patches or 
thick clusters, and are not distributed equally throughout the Epistle. 

Now we turn to Ephesians, for which the data are as follows :— 


EPHESIANS. 

erixos O ©) G) 

Ch. 45 4 3 = 

IL 40 9 6 = 

im. 36 2 6 —_ 
{1a1 15 15 —] 

IV. 55 8 13 I 

Vv. 50 II 17 _— 

= 4 = 13 tea 

P| 270 36 58 I 

ee 

95 


This gives a very different result. The proportion of major points is for 
Eph. i-ili, roughly speaking, 1 in 4, as against 1 in 1-4 for Rom. i-xii, and 
for the whoie Epistle rather more than 1 in 3, as against I in 1-418, The 
proportion of interrogations is I in 270 compared with 1 in 8-6 or 6-5. 


In illustrating the nature of the difference in style between 
Romans and Ephesians we have left in suspense for a time the 
question as to its cause. To this we will now return, and set down 
some of the influences which may have been at work—which we 
may be sure were at work—and which would go a long way to 
account for it. 

(1) First would be the natural variation of style which comes 
from dealing with different subject-matter. The Epistles of the 
second group are all very largely concerned with the controversy 
as to Circumcision and the relations of Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. In the later Epistle this controversy has retired into 
the background, and other topics have taken its place. Ideas are 
abroad as to the mediating agencies between God and man which 
impair the central significance of the Person of Christ; and the 
multiplication of new Churches with the growing organization of 
intercommunication between those of older standing, brings to the 
front the conception of the Church as a whole, and invests it with 
increased impressiveness. 


These facts are reflected on the vocabulary of the two Epistles. The 
controversy with the Judaizers gives a marked colour to the whole group 
which includes the Epistle to the Romans. This will appear on the face 
of the statistics of usage as to the frequency with which the leading terms 
occur in these Epistles and in the rest of the Pauline Corfus. Of course 
some of the instances will be accidental, but by far the greater number are 
significant. Those which follow have a direct bearing on the Judaistic 
controversy. ‘Elsewhere’ means elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles. 


iii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ @& 


* ‘ABpadp Rom. g, a Cor. 1, Gal. 9; not elsewhere in St. Paul, [owépya 
“ABpadp Rom, 2, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1.] ; 
dxpoBvoria Rom. 3, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 3. 
dnogroAn Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere in St. Paul. 
Sinacovv Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 3; elsewhere 2. 
dixaiwpa Rom. 5; not elsewhere. 
dixaiwors Rom. 2; not elsewhere. 
watapyeiv Rom. 6, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 4, Gal. 3; elsewhere 4. 
vépnos Rom. 76, 1 Cor. 8, Gal. 32; elsewhere 6. 
mepitoun Rom. 15, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 7; elsewhere 8. 
onéppa Rom. g, I Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 5; elsewhere 1. 
Connected with this controversy, though not quite so directly, would be»— 
doGevns Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 10, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; elsewhere 1. 
daGeveis Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 2. 
doGéveca Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 6, Gal. 1; elsewhere 1. 
doGévnua Rom, 1; not elsewhere. 
éAevbepos Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 6; elsewhere a. 
éAcvdepotv Rom. 4, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
dXev9epia Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
wavxac0a Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 5 (1 v.1.), 2 Cor. 20, Gal. 2; elsewhere 3 
«avx7jua Rom. I, 1 Cor. 3, 2 Cor. 3, Gal. 1; elsewhere a. 
wavxjois Rom. 2, 1 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 6; elsewhere 1. 
xataxavxac@at Rom. 2; not elsewhere. 
éperAérns Rom. 3, Gal. 1; not elsewhere. 
épeciAnua Rom. 1; not elsewhere. 
oxdviadov Rom. 4, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 13 not elsewhere. [oxavdarilew 
1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 1, Rom. 1 v.1.] 
@pedr:tv Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 1: &péAeca Rom. 1; neither elsewhere, 
Two other points may be noticed, one in connexion with the large use of 
the O.T. in these Epistles, and the other in connexion with the idea of 
successive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided :— 
yéypamtae Rom. 16, 1 Cor. 7, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 4; not elsewhere in 
St. Paul. 
dxpis ob Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 2, Gal. 2 (1 v.1.); not elsewhere. 
é~’ cov xpévov Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 1; not elsewhere 
These examples stand out very distinctly; and their disappearance from 
the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible : cessante causa, cessat effectus. 


(2) But it is not only that the subject-matter of Ephesians differs 
from that of Romans, ¢he circumstances under which it is presented 
also differ. Romans belongs to a period of controversy, and 
although at the time when the Epistle is written the worst is over, 
and the Apostle is able to survey the field calmly, and to state his 
case uncontroversially, still the crisis through which he has passed 
has left its marks behind. The echoes of war are still in his ears. 
The treatment of his subject is concrete and not abstract. He 
sees in imagination his adversary before him, and he argues much 
as he might have argued in the synagogue, or in the presence of 
refractory converts. The atmosphere of the Epistle is that of 
personal debate. This acts as a stimulus, it makes the blood 


4 These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot’s classical 
essay ‘On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians,’ in Jourv. of 
Class. and Sacr. Phélol. iii. (1857) 308 ff. 


§ 6.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE lix 


circulate more rapidly in the veins, and gives to the style a liveli- 
ness and directness which might be wanting when the pressure was 
removed. Between Romans, written to a definite Church and 
gathering up the result of a time of great activity, the direct out- 
come of prolonged discussion in street and house and school, and 
Ephesians, written in all probability not to a single Church but to 
a group of Churches, with its personal edge thus taken off, and 
written too under confinement after some three years of enforced 
inaction, it would be natural that there should be a difference. 

(3) This brings us to a third point which may be taken with the 
last, the allowance which ought to be made for the speczal tempera- 
ment of the Apostle. His writings furnish abundant evidence of 
a highly strung nervous organization. It is likely enough that the 
physical infirmity from which he suffered, the ‘thorn in the flesh’ 
which had such a prostrating effect upon him, was of nervous 
origin. But constitutions of this order are liable to great fluctua- 
tions of physical condition. There will be ‘lucid moments,’ and 
more than lucid moments—months together during which the 
brain will work not only with ease and freedom, but with an 
intensity and power not vouchsafed to other men. And times such 
as these will alternate with periods of depression when body and 
mind alike are sluggish and languid, and when an effort of will is 
needed to compel production of any kind. Now the physical 
conditions under which St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans 
would as naturally belong to the first head as those under which he 
wrote the Epistle which we call ‘Ephesians’ would to the second. 
Once more we should expect antecedently that they would leave 
a strong impress upon the style. 


The difference in style between Rom. and Eph. would seem to be very 
largely a difference in the amount of vital energy thrown into the two 
Epistles. Vivacity is a distinguishing mark of the one as a certain slow and 
laboured movement is of the other. We may trace to this cause the 
phenomena which have been already noted—the shorter sentences of Romans, 
the long involved periods of Ephesians, the frequency of interrogation on the 
one hand, its absence on the other. In Rom. we have the champion of 
Gentile Christendom with his sword drawn, prepared to meet all comers; in 
Eph. we have ‘such an one as Paul the aged, and now a prisoner also of 
Jesus Christ.’ 


Among the expressions specially characteristic of this aspect of Ep. to 
Romans would be the following :— 
dpa, beginning a sentence, Rom. 91 Cor. 1, 2 Cor. 2, Gal. 5; elsewhere 
Epp. Paul. 3, Heb. 2. [dpa ovv Rom. 8 (or QV. 1) Gal. 1; elsewhere 
3: dpa without ody Rom. 1 (or 2 v.1.), 1 Cor. 1, Gal. 3, Heb. a.] 
De] 
GA Aéyo Rom. 2. 
Aéyo 5é Gal. 2. 
Aéyw otv Rom. 2. 
Aéyw 6& ToT ST 1 Cor. Be 
wd Aéyo 2 Cor. 2. 


Ixii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6 


Rom. x. 5-8. Epu. iv. 7-11. 

Moos yap paper ore Tiv Simato- ‘Evl 82 éxdory juav €866n h xdpis 
odvny tiv éx véuov 6 momoas av- Karta 7d péTpov 77s Swpeads TOD Xprorov. 
Opwmos (noera ev airh. w 5 ee 8d dA€yer, "AvaBds els Hos pxuadrw- 
misrews Sixaroovvn obTw Aéyer, Mi) Tevoev alypadwoiar, wal bane SbpaTa 
eings év 7H Kapdia cov Tis dvaBy- Tots dvOpwmos. (7d de AvéBn th éorw 
aera els Tov ovpavdy; (rov7T’ éott, el pi) Sts Kat KaTéBy els TA KaTwTEpa 
Xp:orov katrayayeiv’) H, Tis kata- pépn tas yas; 6 xaTraBds airés éore 
Bnoera eis tiv GBvacov; (Todr’ kai 6 dvaBds inepavw mavrov THyv ovpa- 
tom, Xprordv &K vexpav avayayelv.) vav,iva mAnpwon Ta TavTa.) Kal abTds 
GAda ti A€yer; “Eyy’s gov 70 pjya  €dwke Tods pev GmoardAous K.T.A, 
tory, év TO oTdpati cov Kal ev TH 
wapdia gov’ ToT’ com 7d pHya THs 
wicrems 8 xnpvccopev. 

GAL. iv. 25-31. 

Td 52”A-yap Sw dpos tariv ev Th ’ApaBia, svotoxel 52 7H viv “lepovoadhp 
Sovrcver yap pera Tav Téxvav ats. % dé dv ‘Iepovoadijp eAevOépa éoriv, 
Hrts ott pytnp nu@v. yéypamrar yap, EippavOnrt, oreipa % ov Tikrovea... 
jucts 5€, ddeApol, Kata "IoaaK émayyedias Téexva eopev. GAA’ Gowep rote 6 
kara adpka yevvnels ediaoke TOV KaTa Tlvedua, otw Kat viv. GAA Ti AeyeL 
% yeagy ; “ExBade tiv madioxny Kat Tov vidv abtijs, ob yap pi) KAnpovounop 
6 vids THs madiokns peta Tod viod THs eAevOcpas. 51d, adeApol, ovw Eapev 
madicnns Téxva, GAAA THs éAevOEpas. 


It would be interesting to work out the comparison of this passage of 
Eph. with the earlier Epistles phrase by phrase (e.g. ep. Eph. iv. 7 with 
Rom. xii. 3, 6; 1 Cor. xii. 11; 2 Cor. x. 13); but to do this would be redlly 
endless and would have too remote a bearing on our present subject. Enough 
will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romans* 
and also to show its place in connexion with the range of style in the Pauline 
Epistles generally, as seen in a somewhat extreme example. It is usual, 
especially in Germany, to take Ep. to Romans with its companion Epistles 
as a standard of style for the whole of the Corpus Paulinum. But Bp. Light- 
foot has pointed out that this is an error, this group of Epistles having been 
written under conditions of high tension which in no writer are likely to 
have been permanent. ‘Owing to their greater length in proportion to the 
rest, it is probably from these Epistles that we get our general impression of 
St. Paul’s style; yet their style is in some sense an exceptional one, called 
forth by peculiar circumstances, just as at a late period the style of the 
Pastoral Epistles is also exceptional though in a different way. The normal 
style of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians and those of the Koman captivity *.’ 


When we look back over the whole of the data the impression 
which they leave is that although the difference, taken at its 
extremes, is no doubt considerable, it is yet sufficiently bridged 
over. It does not seem to be anywhere so great as to necessitate 
the assumption of different authorship. Even though any single 
cause would hardly be enough to account for it, there may quite 


1 Besides the passages commented upon here, reference may be made to the 
marked coincidences between the doxology, Rom. xv. 25-27, and Ep. to 
Ephesians. These are fully pointed out ad /oc., and the genuineness of the 
doxology is defended in § 9 of this Introduction. 

2 Journ. of Class. and Sacr. Philol., ut sup., p. 302. 


$7] THE TEXT Ixiii 


well have been a concurrence of causes. And on the other hand 
the positive reasons for supposing that the two Epistles had really 
the same author, are weighty enough to support the conclusion. 
Between the limits thus set, it seems to us that the phenomena of 
style in the Epistles attributed to St. Paul may be ranged without 
straining. 


§ 7. THE TEXT. 


(1) Authorities. The authorities quoted for the various readings 
to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischendorf’s 
great collection (Vov. Test. Graec. vol. ii. ed. 8, Lipsiae, 1872), 
with some verification of the Patristic testimony. For a fuller 
account of these authorities the student must: be referred to the 
Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s edition (mainly the work of Dr. C. R. 
Gregory, 1884, 1890, 1894), and to the latest edition of Scrivener’s 
Introduction (ed. Miller, London, 1894). They may be briefly 
enumerated as follows : 


(1) Grex Manuscripts. 
Primary unctals. 


& Cod. Sinaiticus, saec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the 
Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. 
Contains the whole Epistle complete. 

Its correctors are 
87 contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second 
MS. of high value ; 
N° attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi; 
N° attributed to the beginning of saec. vii. Two hands of 
about this date are sometimes distinguished as N° and 
Neb, 

A. Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library 
at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I 
in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. 

B. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly 

since 1533/ (Batiffol, Za Vaticane de Paul itt a Paul 2, 
p. 86). Complete. 

The corrector B? is nearly of the same date and used 
a good copy, though not quite so good as the original. 
Some six centuries later the faded characters were re- 
traced, and a few new readings introduced by B*. 

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v. In the National Library 
at Paris. Contains the whole Epistle, with the exception of 
the following passages : ii.'5 ka|ra O€ thy . . . Ud TOU vopou 

* Dr. Gregory would carry back the evidence further, to 1521 (Proleg. 

p. 360), but M. Batiffol could find no trace of the MS. in the earlier Ifsts. 


Ixiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. 


iii. 21; ix. 6 ody olov... dav x. 15: Xi. 31 met |Onoar rg 
. . » mAnpopa Xili. 10. 

D. Cod. Claromontanus, saec. vi. Graeco-Latinus. Once at 
Clermont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be 
trusted), now in the National Library at Paris. Contains the 
Pauline Epistles, but Rom. i. 1, Haddos . . . dyamnrois Qcov 
i. 7, is missing, and i. 27 eéexavOnoav .. . ebevperas xakav i. 30 
(in the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later hand. 

E. Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Formerly 
at St. Germain-des-Prés, now at St. Petersburg. [This MS. 
might well be allowed to drop out of the list, as it is nothing 
more than a faulty copy of D.] 

F. Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Bought by Bentley 
in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau (Augia 
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Rom. i. 1 Uad\os . . . ev Te vd[ pe | iii. 19 is missing, both 
in the Greek aud Latin texts. 

G. Cod. Boernerianus, saec. ix ex. Graeco-Latinus. Written at 
St. Gall, now at Dresden. Rom. i. 1 dfwpicpévos .. . miotews 
i. 5, and ii. 16 ra xpumrad . . . vduov fs ii. 25 are missing. 
Originally formed part of the same MS, with 4 (Cod. San- 
gallensis) of the Gospels. 


It has been suggested by Traube (Wattenbach, Amlettung sur Griech. 
Paliographie, ed. 3, 1895, p. 41) that this MS. was written by the same 
hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris which 
bears the signature S7dvAos SxdrTos eyw eypav~a. The resemblance of the 
handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris 
Psalter published by Omont in the Wé/anges Graux, p. 313, with that of the 
St. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society’s series (i. pl. 179). This 
fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. of 
St. Paul’s Epistles is not also to be identified with the compiler of the com- 
mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas \Migne, Patrol. 
Lat. citi. 9-128), which is also ascribed to a ‘ Sedulius Scotus.” The answer 
must be in the negative. The commentary presents none of the charac- 
teristic readings of the MS., and appears to represent a higher grade of 
scholarship. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratres 
hellenict who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (see the 
authorities quoted in Caspari, Que/len zum Taufsymbol, iii. 475n, and 
compare Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 137). There are several instances 
of the name ‘ Sedulius Scotus’ (Migne, P. Z. ut sup.). 


It should be noted that of these MSS. SABC are parts of what 
were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter 
throughout the LXX and Greek Testament; DEF G are all 
Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those which bear the 
same notation on the Gospels and Acts. In Westcott and Hort’s 
Introduction they are distinguished as D, E, F,G,. An important 
MS., Cod. Coislinianus (H or H,), which, however, exists only in 
fragments, is unfortunately wanting for this Epistle : see below. 


§ 7.) . THE TEXT Ixv 


Secondary uncials. 


K. Cod. Mosquensis, saec. ix. Brought to Moscow from the monastery of 
St. Dionysius on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. 
Rom. x. 18 dAAd Aéyw to the end is missing. 

L. Cod. Angelicus, saec. ix. In the Angelican Library of the Augustinian 
monks at Rome. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans com- 
plete. 

P. Cod. Porphyrianus, saec. ix in. A palimpsest brought from the East by 
Tischendorf and called after its present owner Bishop Boe Contains 
Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul., Apoc. Rom. ii. 15 [amoroyou} pevav... 
H Gdieia Alpadv] ili. 5; viii. 35 @eds 6 Sikady...iva 4 Kar’ eAoyHv] 
ix. I1; xi. 22 kal dmoTopiay . . . Ovciay xii. I are missing. 

S. Cod. Athous Laurae, saec. viii-ix. In the monastery Laura on Mount 
Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans complete. This 
MS. has not yet been collated. 

a. Cod. Patiriensis, saec. v. Formerly belonging to the Basilian monks 
of the abbey of Sta. Maria de lo Patire near Rossano, now in the 
Vatican. There is some reason to think that the MS. may have come 
originally from Constantinople (cf. Batiffol, Z’ Abbaye de Rossano, pp. 6, 
79 and 62, 71-74). Twenty-one palimpsest leaves, containing portions 
of Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. These include Rom. xiii. 4-xv. 9. 
A study of readings from this MS. is published in the Revue Siblique 
for April, 1895. 


Minuscules. 


A few only of the leading minuscules can be given, 

§. (= Ew. 5, Act. 5), saec. xiv. At Paris; at one time jn Calabria. 

17. (=Evv. 33, Act. 13), saec. ix (Omont, ix-x Gregory). At Paris. 
Called by Eichhorn ‘the queen of cursives. 

31. (=Act. 25, Apoc. 7). Written 1087 A.D. Belonged to John Covell, 
English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675; now in the British 
Museum. 

32. (= Act. 26), saec. xii. Has a similar history to the last. 

37- (= Evy. 69, Act. 31, Apoc. 14), saec. xv. The well-known ‘ Leicester 
MS.’; one of the ‘ Ferrar group,’ the archetype of which was probably 
written in Calabria. 

47. Saec. xi. Now in the Bodleian, but at one time belonged to the monas- 
tery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Chalcis. 

67. (=Act. 66, Apoc. 34), saec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one time in the 
possession of Arsenius, archbishop of Monemvasia in Epidaurus. The 
marginal corrector (67**) drew from a MS. containing many peculiar 
and ancient readings akin to those of M Paul., which is not extant for 
Ep. to Romans. 

71. Saec. x-xi. At Vienna. Thought to have been written in Calabria. 

8c, (= Act. 73), saec. xi. In the Vatican. 

93. (= Act. 83, Apoc. 99), saec. xii (Gregory). At Naples. Said to have 
been compared with a MS. of Pamphilus, but as yet collated only in 
a few places. 

137. (=Evv. 263, Act. 117), saec. xiii-xiv. At Paris. 

252. (Gregory, 260 Scrivener = Evy. 489. Greg., 507 Scriv.; Act. 195 Greg., 
224 Scriv.). In the library of Trin. Coll., Cambridge. Written on 
Mount Sinai in the year 1316. 


These MSS. are partly those which have been noticed as giving ¢on- 
spicuous readings in the commentary, partly those on which stress is laid 
by Hort (Jztrod. p. 166), and partly those which Bousset connects with bis 
§ Codex Pamphili’ (see below), 


Ixvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - [$7 


(2) VErstons. 


The versions quoted are the following: 


The Latin (Latt.). 
The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.) 
. The Vulgate (Vulg.). 
The Egyptian (Aegypt.). 
The Bohairic (Boh.). 
The Sahidic (Sah.). 
The Syriac (Syrr.). 
The Peshitto (Pesh.). 
The Harclean (Harcl.), 
The Armenian (Arm.). 
The Gothic (Goth.). 
The Ethiopic (Aeth.). 


Of these the Vetus Latina is very imperfectly preserved te us. We 
possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. These are : 
gue. Cod. Guelferbytanus, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. xi, 
33-Xii. 5; xii. 17-xiii. 5; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13. 
r. Cod. Frisingensis, saec. v or vi, containing Rom. xiv. 10-xv. 13. 
is. oe Gottvicensis, saec. vi or vii, containing Rom. v. 16-vi. ¢; 
vi. 6-19. 


evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version (see on i. 30; v. 3-53 viii. 36), 
which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion with the 
history of the Version. They have however more to do with the changes 
in the Latin diction of the Version than with its text. The fullest treat- 
ment of the Ve‘us Latina of St. Paul’s Epistles will be found in Ziegler, 
Die lateinischen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus, Miinchen, 1879; 
but the subject has not as yet been sufficiently worked at for a general 
agreement to be reached. 
For the Vulgate the following MSS. are occasionally quoted: 
am. Cod. Amiatinus c. 700 A.D. 
fuld. Cod. Fuldensis c. 546 A.D. 
harl. British Museum Harl. 1775. Saec. vwi or vii. 
tol. Cod. Toletanus. Saec. x, or rather perhaps viii (see Berger, A/és- 
toire de la Vulgate, p. 14). 
The Vulgate of St. Paul's Epistles is a revision of the Old Latin so slight 
and cursory as to be hardly an independent authority. It was however made 


§ 7] THE TEXT Ixvil 


with the help of the Greek MSS., and we have the express statement of 
St. Jerome himself that in Rom. xii. 11 he substituted Domino servientes 
for tempcrt servientes of the older Version (Zp. xxvii. 3 ad Marcellam). 
We gather from this letter that Jerome’s edition had been issued in the year 
85 A.D. 

: Of the Egyptian Versions, Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic 
(= ‘me. WH.) and cited by Tisch. as ‘Coptic’ (‘cop.’). For the reasons 
which make it correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener, /#trod. ii. 106, 
ed. 4. It is usually cited according to Tischendorf (who appears in the 
Epistles to have followed Wilkins; see Tisch. V.7. p. ccxxxiv, ed. 7), but 
in some few instances on referring to the original it has become clear that 
his quotations cannot always be trusted: see the notes on v. 6; viii. 28; 
x.5; xvi. 27. This suggests that not only a fresh edition of the text, but 
also a fresh collation with the Greek, is much needed. 

In the Sahidic (Thebaic) Version (=‘sah.’ Tisch., ‘the.’ WH.) some 
few readings have been added from the fragments published by Amélineau 
in the Zeztschrift fiir Aegypt. Sprache, 1887. These fragments contain vi. 
20-23 ; Vii. I-21 ; viii. 15-38 ; ix. 7-23; xi. 31-36; xii. I-9. 

The reader may be reminded that the Peshitto Syriac was certainly current 
much in its present form early in the fourth century. How much earlier 
than this it was in use, and what amount of change it had previously under- 
gone, are questions still being debated. In any case, there is no other form 
of the Version extant for the Pauline Epistles. 

The Harclean Syriac (= ‘syr. p[osterior]’ Tisch., ‘hl. WH.) is a re- 
cension made by the Monoy-hysite Thomas of Harkhel or Heraclea in 616 
A.D., of the older Philoxenian Version of 508 a.D., which for this part 
of the N.T. is now lost. <A special importance attaches to the readings, 
sometimes in the text but more often in the margin, which appear to be 
derived from ‘three (vy. ]. two) approved and accurate Greek copies’ in the 
monastery of the Enaton near Alexandria (WH. Ziztrod. p. 156 f.). 

The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the 
fourth century, and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth. The dates 
of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Ethiopic are still uncertain 
(Scrivener, Zutrod. ii. 105 f., 154, ed. 4). It is of more importance to know 
that the types of text which they represent are in any case early, the 
Egyptian somewhat the older. 

The abbreviations in references to the Patristic writings are such as it is 
hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. cx). 


(2) Internal Grouping of Authorities. The most promising and 
successful of all the directions in which textual criticism is being 
pursued at this moment is that of isolating comparatively small 
groups of authorities, and investigating their mutual relations and 
origin. For the Pauline Epistles the groups most affected by 
Tecent researches are 8B; NCH, Arm., Euthal., and in less degree 
a number of minuscules; D[E]F G. 


NB. 

The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS. 
with the library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Caesarea. That is a view 
which has been held for some time past (e.g. by the late Canon Cook, 
Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 159 ff.; and Dr. Scrivener, 
Collation of Cod. Sinatticus, p. xxxvii f.), but without resting upon any very 
solid arguments. And it must always be remembered that so excellent 
a palaeographer as Dr. Ceriani of Milan (af. Scrivener, /rtrod. i. 121, ed. 4} 
thought that B was written in Italy (Magna Graecia), and that Dr. Hort 


Ixviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. 


also gives some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. We are 
however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both 
MSS. if they were not written in the same place had at least in part the same 
scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (JV. 7. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867, 
pp: xxi-xxiii), on grounds which seem to be sufficient, that the writer whom 
he calls the ‘fourth scribe’ of 8 wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as 
it has been said, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting 
& with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Haris, Stichometry, p. 71 ff.; 
and the essay of Bousset referred to below). 

The provenance of S would only carry with it approximately and not 
exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or 
not difficult, for the same scribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the 
view that & had its origin in Palestine would not be inconsistent with the 
older view, recently revived and defended by Bousset, that B was an Egyp- 
tian MS. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine 
and Egypt, especially among the followers of Origen, that they would belong 
virtually to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further and main- 
tains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychius', that is another 
matter, and as it seems to us, at least prima facie, by no means probable. 
The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century, which is 
the date assigned to Hesychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian, 
it is only as one amongst several possibilities. Nothing can as yet be 
regarded as proved. 

Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which con- 
nect the two MSS. as they have come down to us there can be no doubt that 
they had also a common ancestor far back in the past. The weight which 
their agreement carries does not depend on the independence of their testi- 
mony so much as upon its early date. That the date of their common 
readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the number of 
readings in which they differ, these divergent readings being shared not by 
any means always by the same but by a great variety of other authorities. 
From this variety it may be inferred that between the point of divergence 
of the ancestors of the two MSS. and the actual MSS. the fortunes of each 
had been quite distinct. Not only on a single occasion, but on a number of 
successive occasions, new strains of text have been introduced on one or 
other of the lines. N especially has received several side streams in the 
course of its history, now of the colour which we call ‘ Western’ and now 
‘Alexandrian’; and B also (as we shall see) in the Pauline Epistles has 
a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may have 
come in from a single copy; but it is less likely that all the ‘ Western’ or 
all the ‘Alexandrian’ readings which are found in N had a single origin. 
Indeed the history of ® since it was written does but reflect the history of 
its ancestry. We have only to suppose the corrections of N* embodied in 
the text of one MS., then those of N° first inserted in the margin and then 
embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of N° in a third and 
Ne» in a fourth, to form a mental picture of the process by which our present 
MS. became what it is. It remains for critical analysis to reconstruct this 
process, to pick to pieces the different elements of which the text o1 the 
MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities. 
This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been. 


Ne H, Amm., Enthal. 


A number of scholars working on N have thrown out suggestions which 
would tend to group together these authorities, and possibly to bring them 


1 A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modern text based on 
& Bas zur ein Spiegelbild einer willkiirlich fixierten Recension des vierien 
Jahrhunderts (Der Cyprianische Text d, Acta Aposiolorum, Berlin, 1892, p. 24). 


$7] THE TEXT Ixix 


into some further connexion with NB. The MS. H Paul. (unfortunately, 
as we have said, not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of 
its connexion with the library of Caesarea, as the subscription to Ep. to Titus 
states expressly that the MS. was corrected ‘with the copy at Caesarea in 
the library of the holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.’ Now in June, 
1893, Dr. Rendel Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. H Paul. 
and Euthalius (Stichometry, p. 88). This had also been noticed by Dr. P. 
Corssen in the second of the two programmes cited below (p.12). Early in 
1894 Herr W. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte 2. Un- 
tersuchungen a series of Text-kritische Studien zum N. T7.,in the course 
of which (without any concert with Dr. Rendel Harris, but perhaps with 
some knowledge of Corssen) he not only adduced further evidence of this 
connexion, but also brought into the group the third corrector cf & (N°). 
A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his hand speaks 
in graphic terms of a MS. corrected by the Hexapla of Origen, com- 
pared by Antoninus a confessor, and corrected by Pamphilus ‘in prison’ 
(i. e. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). Attention had 
often been drawn to this note, but Herr Bousset was the first to make the 
full use of it which it deserved. He found on examination that the presump- 
tion raised by it was verified and that there was a real and close connexion 
between the readings of N¢ and those of H and Euthalius which were inde- 
pendently associated with Pamphilus’. Lastly, to complete the series of 
novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conybeare comes forward in the 
current number of the Journal of Philology (no. 46, 1895) and maintains 
a further connexion of the group with the Armenian Version. These 
researches are at present in full swing, and will doubtless lead by degrees 
to more or less definite results. The essays which have been mentioned 
all contain some more speculative matter in addition to what has been 
mentioned, but it is also probable that they have a certain amount of solid 
nucleus. It is only just what we should have expected. The library 
founded by Pamphilus at Caesarea was the greatest and most famous of 
all the book-collections in the early Christian centuries; it was also the 
greatest centre of literary and copying activity just at the moment when 
Christianity received its greatest expansion; the prestige not only of 
Eusebius and Pamphilus, but of the still more potent name (for some time 
yet to come) of Origen, attached to it. It would have been strange if it had 
not been consulted from far and wide and if the influence of it were not felt 
in many parts of Christendom. 


DFG, Goth. 

Not only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a very close relation between 
F and G, especially in the Greek. It is not as yet absolutely determined 
what that relation is. In an essay written in 1871 (reprinted in Lightfoot, 
Biblical Essays, p. 321 ff.) Dr. Hort states his opinion that F Greek is a direct 
copy of G, F Latin a Vulgate text partly assimilated to the Greek and with 
intrusive readings from the Latin of G. Later (Jztvod. p. 150) he writes 
that F is ‘as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of Gas E of D: if not 
it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar.’ This second alterna- 
tive is the older view, adopted by Scrivener (/trod. p. 181, ed. 3) and 
Maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by 
Dr. P. Corssen (ZZ. Paulin. Codd. Aug. Boern. Clarom., 1887 and 1889). 


1 Since the above was written all speculations on the subject of Euthalius 
have been superseded by Prof. Armitage Robinson’s admirable essay in Zexts 
and Studies, iii. 3. Both the text of Euthalius and that of the Codex Pam- 
philt are shewn to be as yet very uncertain quantities. Still it is probable that 
the authorities in question are really connected, and that there are elements in 
their text which may be traceable to Euthalius on the one hand and the Cae- 
sarean library on the other, 


Ixx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. 


We are not sure that the question can still be regarded as settled in this 
sense, and that Dr. Hort’s original view is not to be preferred. Dr. Corssen 
admits that there are some phenomena which he cannot explain (1887, p. 13). 
These would fall naturally into their place if F Gk. is a copy of G; and the 
arguments on the other side do not seem to be decisive. In any case it 
should be remembered that F Gk. and G Gk. are practically one witness and 
not two. 

Dr. Corssen reached a number of other interesting conclusions. Examining 
the common element in D F G he showed that they were ultimately derived 
from a single archetype (Z), and that this archetype was written fer cola et 
commata, or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called 
orixot), as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society’s facsimile of D 
(ser. i. pl. 63, 64). Here again we have another coincidence of inde- 
pendent workers, for in 1891 Dr. Kendel Harris carrying further a suggestion 
of Rettig’s had thrown out the opinion, that not only did the same system of 
colometry lie behind Cod. A Evv. (the other half, as we remember, of 
G Paul.) and D Evv. Act. (Cod. Bezae, which holds a like place in the 
Gospel and Acts to D Paul.), but that it also extended to the other impor- 
tant Old-Latin MS. k (Cod. Bobiensis), and even to the Curetonian Syriac 
—to which we suppose may now be added the Sinai palimpsest. If that 
were so—and indeed without this'additional evidence—Dr. Corssen probably 
puts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. is not likely to have 
been written before the time of St. Chrysostom, or 407 A.D. 

Thus Dr. Corssen thinks that there arose early in the fifth century 
a ‘Graeco-Latin edition,’ the Latin of which was more in agreement with 
Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Speculum. For the inter-connexion 
of this group he adduces a striking instance from 1 Cor. xiii. 1; and he 
argues that the locality in which it arose was more probably Italy than 
Africa. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree with him 
than as to the date, though the Sfecu/um contains an African element. He 
then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic 
Version. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews; and the 
Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. xv. 14 (see § 9 below); it was 
entirely without the doxology (Rom. xvi. 25-27). 

Dr. Corssen thinks that this Graeco-Latin edition has undergone some 
correction in D by comparison with Greek MSS. and therefore that it is in 
part more correctly preserved in G, which however in its turn can only be 
used for reconstructing it with caution. 

Like all that Dr. Corssen writes this sketch is suggestive and likely to be 
fruitful, though we cannot express our entire agreement with it. We only 
regret that we cannot undertake here the systematic inquiry which certainly 
ought to be made into the history of this group. The lines which it should 
follow would be something of this kind. (i) It should reconstruct as far as 
possible the common archetype of D and G. (ii) It should isolate the 
peculiar element in both MSS. and distinguish between earlier and later 
readings. The instances ia which the Greek has been conformed to the Latin 
will probably be found to be late and of little real importance. (iii) The 
peculiar and ancient readings in Gg should be carefully collected and 
studied. An opportunity might be found of testing more closely the hypo- 
thesis propounded in § 9 of this Introduction. (iv) The relations of the 
Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible. 
(v) The characteristics both of D and of the archetype of DG should be 
compared with those of Cod. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. of the Gospels 
and Acts. 


(3) Zhe Textual Criticism of Epistle to Romans. The textual 
criticism of the Pauline Episiles generally is inferior in interest to 


§ 7.) THE TEXT Ixxt 


that of the Historical Books of the New Testament. When this is 
said it is not meant that investigations such as those outlined above 
are not full of attraction, and in their way full of promise. Any- 
thing which throws new light on the history of the text will be found 
in the end to throw new light on the history of Christianity. But 
what is meant is that the textual phenomena are less marked, and 
have a less distinctive and individual character. 

This may be due to two causes, both of which have really been 
at work. On the one hand, the latitude of variation was probably 
never from the first so great; and on the other hand the evidence 
which has come down to us is inferior both in quantity and quality, 
so that there are parts of the history—and those just the most 
interesting parts—which we cannot reconstruct simply for want of 
material. A conspicuous instance of both conditions is supplied 
by the state of what is called the ‘ Western Text.’ It is probable 
that this text never diverged from the other branches so widely as 
it does in the Gospels and Acts; and just for that section of it 
which diverged most we have but little evidence. For the oldest 
forms of this text we are reduced to the quotations in Tertullian 
and Cyprian. We have nothing like the best of the Old-Latin MSS. 
of the Gospels and Acts; nothing like forms of the Syriac Versions 
such as the Curetonian and Sinaitic; nothing like the Dza/essaron. 

And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline 
Epistles we observe the same main lines of distribution as in the 
rest of the N.T. A glance at the apparatus criticus of the Epistle 
to the Romans will show the tendency of the authorities to fall 
into the groups DE FG; 8B; NACLP. These really corre- 
spond to like groups in the other Books: DEFG correspond 
to the group which, in the nomenclature of Westcott and Hort, is 
called ‘ Western’; 8 B appear (with other leading MSS. added) to 
mark the line which they would call ‘ Neutral’; SACLP would 
include, but would not be identical with, the group which they call 
‘Alexandrian.’ The later uncials generally (with accessions every 
now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family 
which they designate as ‘Syrian,’ and which others have called 
‘ Antiochene,’ ‘ Byzantine,’ ‘Constantinopolitan,’ or ‘ Ecclesiastical.’ 

Exception is taken to some of these titles, especially to the term 
‘Western,’ which is only retained because of its long-established 
use, and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical descrip- 
tion of the facts. It might be proposed to substitute names 
suggested in most cases by the leading MS. of the group, but 
generalized so as to cover other authorities as well. For instance, 
we might speak of the $-text (= ‘ Western’), the B-text (=‘ Neutral’), 
the a-text (=‘ Alexandrian’), and the e-text or o-text (=‘Ecclesi- 
astical’ or ‘Syrian’). Such terms would beg no questions; they 
would simply describe facts. It would be an advantage that the 


Ixxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. 


same term ‘8-text’ would be equally suggested by the leading MS. 
in the Gospels and Acts, and in the Pauline Epistles; the term 
‘ B-text,’ while suggested by B, would carry with it no assumption 
of superiority ; ‘a-text’ would recall equally ‘Alexandrian’ and 
‘Codex Alexandrinus’; and ‘e-text’ or ‘o-text’ would not imply 
any inherent inferiority, but would only describe the undoubted 
facts, either that the text in question was that generally accepted by 
the Church throughout the Middle Ages, or that in its oldest form 
it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern 
Syria. It is certain that this text (alike for Gospels, Acts, and 
Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region, and spread 
from it; while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing 
would be either affirmed or denied. 


If some such nomenclature as this were adopted a further step might be 
taken by distinguishing the earlier and later stages of the same text as 5', 
8?, &c., o!, o, &c. It would also have to be noted that althongh in the 
vast majority of cases the group would include the MS. from which it 
took its name, still in some instances it would not include it, and it might 
even be ranged on the opposite side. This would occur most often with 
the a-text and A, but it would occur also occasionally with the B-text and 
B (as conspicuously in Rom. xi. 6). 

Such being the broad outlines of the distribution of authorities on the 
Epistle to the Romans, we ask, What are its distinctive and individual 
features? These are for the most part shared with the rest of the Pauline 
Epistles. One of the advantages which most of the other Epistles 
Romans is without: none of the extant fragments of Cod. H belong to it. 
This deprives us of one important criterion; but conclusions obtained for 
the other Epistles may be applied to this. For instance, the student will 
observe carefully the readings of N° and Arm. Snfficient note has unfor- 

_ tunately not been taken of them in the commentary, as the clue was not in 
the writer’s hands when it was written. In this respect the reader must be 
asked to supplement it. He should of course apply the new test with 
caution, and judge each case on its merits: only careful use can show to what 
extent it is valid. When we consider the mixed origin of nearly all ancient 
texts, sweeping propositions and absolute rules are seen to be out of 

lace. 
' The specific characteristics of the textual apparatus of Romans may be 
said to be these : (i) the general inferiority in boldness and originality of the 
8- (or Western) text; (ii) the fact that there is a distinct Western element in 
B, which therefore when it & combined with authorities of the 5- or Western 
is diminished in value; (iii) the consequent rise in importance of the 
group NAC; (iv) the existence of a few scattered readings either of B alone 
or of Bin combination with one or two other authorities which have con- 
siderable intrinsic probability and may be right. 

We proceed to say a few words on each of these heads. 

(i) The first must be taken with the reservations noted above. The 
Western or 5-text has not it is true the bold and interesting variations which 
are found in the Gospels and Acts. It has none of the striking inter- 
polations which in those Books often bring in ancient and valuable matter. 
That may be due mainly to the fact that the interpolations in question are 
for the most part historical, and therefore would naturally be looked for in 
the Historical Books. In Ep. to Romans the more important 5-variants 
are not interpolations but omissions (as e.g. in the Gospel of St. Luke). Still 


§ 7.) THE TEXT Ixxiii 


these variants preserve some of the freedom of correction and paraphras-: to 
which we are accustomed elsewhere. 

E. g. iii. 9 ti mpoxaréxopev wépicoov ; D* G, Chrys. Orig.-lat. @/.: ti ody ; 

mpoexopucba ; rel. 

iv. I9 ov xatevénoew DEFG, &c. Orig.-lat. Epiph. Ambrstr. a/.: 
xatevonoev NS A BC ai. 

W. 14 ént rovs auaprncavras 62, 63, 67**, Orig.-lat. Codd. Lat. ap. 
Aug., Ambrstr.: ént rods u7) duapryoaytas rel. 

vii. 6 700 Gavarov DE F G, Codd. ap. Orig.-lat. af.: dnodavdvres rel, 

xii, II 7 Kaipp Sovrdcvovtes D* F G, Codd. Lat. ap. Hieron. ap. 
Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. : 7 Kupig SovAcvovtes rel. 
13 Tals pveias Tov ayiov D* FG, Codd. ap. Theod. Mops. ap. 
Orig.-lat. Hil. Ambrstr. @/.: rais xpelas av dyiow rel. |These 
two readings were perhaps due in the first instance te accidental 
errors of transcription. } 

KV. 13 wAnpopopjoa: BF G: #Anpwoa rel. 
22 moAAduis BD EF G: 1a moAda rel. 
31 dwpopopia B D* F G, Ambrstr.: diaxovia rel, 

The most interesting aspect of this branch of the text is the history of its 
antecedents as represented by the common archetype of D G, and even more 
by the peculiar element inG. The most prominent of these readings are 
discussed below in § 9, but a still further investigation of them in connexion 
with allied phenomena in other Epistles is desirable. 

(ii) It will have been seen that in the last three readings just given B joins 
with the unmistakably Western authorities. And this phenomenon is in 
point of fact frequently repeated. We have it also in the omission of 
+mparov i. 16; om. yap iii. 2; om. 77 mioTe Vv. 2; *ins. pév vi. 21; did 7d 
évoikobv av’rod Ivedua viii. 11 (where however there is a great mass of other 
authorities); *om. Ingots and *om. é« vexpoy viii. 34 ; 77 Siad7Kn ix. 4; ins. 
ovy ix. 19; *i7: after vépou and *+}avra ins. after romoas x. 5; év [Tos] x. 
20; *om. yap xiv. 5; om. ctv, drodwoa, tom. TH Oc@ xiv. 12; *add # cxav- 
bariCerar F doGevet xiv. 21; jas xv. 73 Tiv [kavxnowv] xv. 17. 

It is perhaps significant that in all the instances marked with * the group 
is joined by N*. It may be through a copy related to the ‘Codex Pam- 
phili’ that these readings came into B. We also note that the latest and 
worst of all the readings found in B, the long addition in xi. 6 ef 5 é¢ épyav 
ovxért (om. éort B) xapis* éxet 7d Epyov ovxére éotl yapis (sic B; Epyov al.) 
is shared by Bwith NeL. In the instances marked with +, and in xv. 13 
wAnpopopnoa, B agrees not with D but with G; but on the other hand in 
viii. 34 (om. ‘Incovs) and in xv. 7 it agrees with D against G; so that the 
resemblance to the peculiar element in the latter MS. does not stand out 
quite clearly. In the other instances both D and G are represented. 

(iii) When B thus goes over to the Wester or 5-group the main support 
of the alternative reading is naturally thrown uponNAC. This is a group 
which outside the Gospels and Acts and especially in Past. Epp. Heb. and 
Apoc. (with or without other support) has not seldom preserved the right 
reading. It becomes in fact the main group wherever B is not extant. The 
principal difficulty—and it is one of the chief of the not very numerous 
textual difficulties in Romans—is to determine whether these MSS. really 
retain the original text or whether their reading is one of the finer Alexan- 
drian corrections. This ambiguity besets us (e.g.) in the very complex 
attestation of viii. tz. The combination is strengthened where NA are 
joined by the Westerns as in iii. 28. In this instance, as in a few others, 
they are opposed by BC, a pair which do not carry quite as much weight 
in the Epistles as they would in the Gospels. 

(iv) It may appear paradoxical, but the value of B seems to rise when 
it is deserted by all or nearly all other uncials, Appearances may be 


lxxiv 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


[§ 7. 


deceptive, but there is not a little reason for thinking that the following 
readings belong to the soundest innermost kernel of the MS. 

iv. I om. etpyxéva, 

v. 6 ef ye. 

vii. 25 xdpis TH Oca. 

viii. 24 8 yap BAéwe, rhs ermives ; 

x. 9 70 pjya... S71 Kupios Inaobs. 

xiv. 13 om. mpdoxoppa... 7H. 

xv. 19 Tvedparos without addition. 

As all these readings have been discussed more or less fully in the com- 
mentary, they need only be referred to here. Two more readings present 
considerable attractions. 

ix. 23 om. xai. 

xvi. 27 om. @. 

They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the 
construction. The question is whether or not they are valid exceptions to 
the rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Such exceptions 
there undoubtedly are; and it is at least a tenable view that these are 
among them. 

Other singular, or subsingular, readings of B will be found in xv. 4, 13, 
30, 32. But these are less attractive and less important. 


§ 8. LITERARY HISTORY. 


The literary history of the Epistle to the Romans begins earlier 


than that of any other book of the N.T. Not only is it clearly 


and distinctly quoted in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, but 
even within the N.T. canon there are very close resemblances both 
in thought and language between it and at least three other books; 
these resemblances we must first consider. 

We shall begin with the first Epistle of St. Peter. In the 
following table the passages in which there is a similarity between 
the two Epistles are compared : 


Rom. ix. 25 xadéow tov ob Aady 
pov Aadv pov, kal TH ovK TyaTTH- 
pevny jyamnperny. 

Rom. ix. 32, 33 mpocéxopar TO 
AlOm Tov TpogkKéppaTos, Kabas 
yéyparra, Ldov, TiOnpus ev Sid 
AiOov wmpockédéppaTtos Kal wéET- 
pav oxavddadov' Kai 6 morevov 
én’ avT@ ov KaTatoxurOn- 
oerat. 


Rom. xii. I mapaorjoa Ta owpara 
tpav Ovoiav (aaav, ayiav, ev apeo- 
Tov TH OE@, THY AoyiKnv AaTpelav 
bya. 

Rom. xii. 2 pa ouoxnparti- 
(ead 7Q alav Tour. 


1 Peter ii. 10 of ror? of Aads, viv 
52 Aads Ccod, of ob HAEenuevalL, vo 
52 eden Gévtes. 

1 Peter ii. 6-8 “Id0¥, riOnps dy 
Zidv Al@ov dxpoyomaiov éxrexTdv, 
évripov" Kat 6 miatevor én’ atte 
ov pi) KaTaoxuvOD . . . ovTos 
éyevn@n els xepadivy -yovias, * «al 
AlOos mpooxéppatos cat wérpa 
oxavidirou, of tpocwdnroves: TE 
Adyy dmeOodvres, els 8 wat ére- 
Onoav. 

1 Peter ii. 5 dvevéyxat mvevparieds 
Ovaias evmpocdcxtous Ce@ Kad *L 
Xp. 


1 Peter i. 14 pb) ovoxnpari€é- 
pevot Tats mpétepov év TH ayvoig tpaw 
émOuplais. 


LITERARY 


§ 8.] 


The following passages seem 
thoughts and words: 


Rom. xii. 3 dAAd ¢dpoveiv els rd 
@uppoveiy... 

6 éxovtes 52 xapiopata Kara 
TY Xapiv THY Sobcioay Hyiv bd- 
gopa...cire Staxoviay, év TH 
diaxovig ... ‘ 

3 éxaotmy ws 6 Oeds tpépice 
METpoy TioTEWs. 

Cf. also Rom. xiii. 11-14; 8-10; 


xii. 9, 13. 


Rom. xii. 9 4 dyamn dvumd- 
wpiTos...10 TH ptdadeagig 
els GAAHAOvS Piddoropyo. 


Rom. xii. 16 7d aizd els GAAHAOVS 
ppovovytes wh Ta tnd ppo- 
vodvtes, GAAA Tois Tame.vots 
ouvamayopevos. pi) yiveoOe ppdvipor 
wap’ éavTots. 

17 pndev) wakdv av7i Kakov 
Gtmos.ddvres* mpovoodpevoe Kara 
&umov navrwv avOpwrov: 

18 «i duvardv, 7d e€ byav, pera 
mavTov dvOpwrov cipnvevorvTes. 


Cf. also vv. 9, 14. 


Rom. xiii. 1 taca Puy? efovaiats 
Orepexovcats wtbrotaccécba 
ov yap Eotwy éfoucia ei pr Ud Oeod, 
al 5 otca: imd cod TeTaypévat 
eigiv... 

3 of yap apxovtes ovr elai PdBos 
TH Aya0@ Epyw, GAA TO kakG@... 

4 @cov yap Stdxovds ear, Ex- 
Sexos cis dpyiv TH 70 KAKO mpac- 
GovT... 

4 dmédoTe Tact Tdas dpedds TP 
Tov popov tov pdpov, T@ Td TEdos 
70 Tédos, TH TOV PoBov Tov PdsBor, 
TP THY Tiphy TH Tipyy. 


HISTORY Ixxv 


to be modelled on St. Paul’s 


1 Peter iv. 7-11 wdvrow 5é 7d Tédos 
hyyise coppovnoare ov kal v7- 
Ware eis mpocevxas* mpd mavTwv Tv 
eis éautois dyamnyv éxtevq exovTes, 
Sri ayamn KadvnTE wARO0s dyuapTiav 
prrdgevos eis GAAnAous, dvev yoyyu- 
opov’ éxactos Kadws édkaBe xapta- 
pa, els autos avTd StakovovrTes, 
@s xadol olxovdpuor mokidns xapeTos 
@cod" ef tis AaAct, ws Adyia Ocod> ef 
ms Stakovel, ws ef laxvos Hs xopynyel 
& @eds. 


1 Peter i. 22 tds Yuxds byav Ayn- 
wéres...e€ls ptdadeAdiav avutd- 
“epeTov &t kapdias GAANAOVS ayatn- 
gate éxTevas, 


1 Peter iii. 8, 9 7d 5% réAos, mavTes 
6poppoves, aupmabeis, pidddedpor, 
eVoTmrAayxvol, Tamervddpoves, pi 
dmodidovres kakdv ayvtt Kxakov 
# Aotdopiay dytt Aoidopias, TobvayTiov 
be evAoyodrres, Ste eis TODTO ExAT- 
Onre va ebXROYLaV KANpovopNoNTE... 

Il éxxAwdtw 5é dm Kakod, Kar 
TomoaTa ayaddv" (ytnodtw eipnynv 
kai diafarw avTjv. 


1 Peter ii. 13-17 brordynrte még 
dvOpanivy Krica Sid Tov Kuptor, 
eire Bacirel, ws bmepexovTi, cite 
Hyépoov, ws bv avrov mepmopevas «is 
€xSinnoww Kkakomomv Emavoy He 
ayaGonoay St ovTws éot? TO O€Anpa 
Tov Qcod... mdvTas TLuNoaTE’ THY, 
addeApornta ayanare dv Ocdv 
poBetad« toy Baciréa Tipare. 


Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the 
resemblance is too great and too constant to be merely acci- 
dental. In 1 Pet. ii. 6 we have a quotation from the O.T. with 
the same variations from the LXX that we find in Rom. ix. 32 
(see the note). Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as 
the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. 
ii. 5), and the same rare words, such as ovoynpati{eoOa, dvumd- 
«piros, but in one passage (Rom. xiii. 1-7; 1 Pet. ii. 13-17) we 


Ixxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8. 


have what must be accepted as conclusive evidence, the same ideas 
occurring in the same order. Nor can there be any doubt that of 
the two the Epistle to the Romans is the earlier. St. Paul works 
out a thesis clearly and logically; St. Peter gives a series of 
maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. Paul. For example, 
in Rom. xiii. 7 we have a broad general principle laid down, 
St. Peter, clearly influenced by the phraseology of that passage, 
merely gives three rules of conduct, In St. Paul the language 
and ideas come out of the sequence of thought; in St. Peter 
they are adopted because they had already been used for the same 
purpose. 

This relation between the two Epistles is supported by other 
independent evidence. The same relation which prevails between 
the First Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle to the Romans is also 
found to exist between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians, and 
the same hypothesis harmonizes best with the facts in that case 
also. The three Epistles are all connected with Rome: one of 
them being written to the city, the other two in all probability 
being written from it. We cannot perhaps be quite certain as 
to the date of 1 Peter, but it must be earlier than the Apostolic 
Fathers who quote it; while it in its turn quotes as we see at least 
two Epistles of St. Paul and these the most important. We may 
notice that these conclusions harmonize as far as they go with the 
view taken in § 3, that St. Peter was not the founder of the Roman 
Church and had not visited it when the Epistle to the Romans was 
written. In early church history arguments are rarely conclusive ; 
and the even partial coincidence of different lines of investigation 
adds greatly to the strength of each. 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was probably 
indebted to the Romans, the resemblance between Rom. iv. 17 
and Heb. xi. 11 is very close and has been brought out in the 
notes, while in Rom. xii. 19, Heb. x. 30, we have the same 
passage of Deuteronomy quoted with the same marked diver- 
gences from the text of the LXX. This is not in itself conclusive 
evidence; there may have been an earlier form of the version 
current, in fact there are strong grounds for thinking so; but the 
hypothesis that the author of the Hebrews used the Romans is 
certainly the simplest. We again notice that the Hebrews is 
a book closely connected with the Roman Church, as is proved by 
its early use in that Church, and if it were, as is possible, written 
from Rome or Italy its indebtedness to this Epistle would be 
accounted for. The two passages referred to are quoted below; 
and, although no other passages resemble one another sufficiently 
to be quoted, yet it is quite conceivable that many other of the 
words and phrases in the Hebrews which are Pauline in character 
may have been derived from an acquaintance with this Epistle, 


§8.] 


LITERARY HISTORY 


lxxvii 


The passages referred to are the following: 


Rom. iv. 17-31 warévayt: ov éni- 
Grevce BEOD TOV (woroL0dvTOS Tos 
vexpovs...kal pr acdenoas TH 
miore: KaTevonoe TO éauvTOd cHpa 
95n vevexpmpévov (Exatovtaérns 
wou U7apxov), kal THY VEKpwOLY TIS 
pntpas Sappas «ls 5% tiv éway- 
yeAiay Tov Geod ov Seexpibn 77 
dmotig, GAN’ éveduvaywbn 7H 
miate:, dovs Séfay TO Ocd, wal 
wAnpopopndeis Sti 8 emyyycATas 
Suvarés éor: wat roiqoa, 

Rom. xii. 19 épol éxdicnos, ya 
dvranodiom, Aéyee Kupios. 


Heb. xi. 11, 12 aiores ral ab7%) Sappa 
Bivapiy cis KxataBodzv ozéppatos 
éAaBev kal mapa «arpov 7Atkias, éwel 
miotov wyyoato tov éwayyetAd- 
pevov> &0 Kat ad’ évos éeyevyn naar, 
wal TadTa vevexpwpévov... 

Ig Aoyiodpevos St: wai de vexpar 
eycipav Suvareés 6 Ceds. 


Heb. x. 30 éyol exdienes, iyo 
dyran0deow*, 


When we pass to the Epistle of St. James we approach a much 
more difficult problem. The relation between it and the Epistle 
to the Romans has been often and hotly debated; for it is 


a theological as well as a literary question. 


The passages which 


resemble one another in the two Epistles are given at length by 
Prof. Mayor in his edition of the Epistle of St. James, p. xciii, who 


argues strongly in favour of the later date of the Romans. 


The 


following are among the most important of these; we have not 
thought it necessary to repeat all his instances: 


Rom. ii. 1 8:8 dvamoAdynros ef, & 
GvOpame was 6 kpivaw ev & yap 
wpivets Tov Erepov, ceauTov KaTa- 
kpivas’ ta yap ai7a ampagcas 6 
wpivey. 

Rom. ii. 13 ov ydp of dxpoara? 
vopou Sica: rapa [7] Ge@ GAA’ of 
fointai vopov dikawecOqnoovTa. 


Rom. iv. I ti oty épodpev ebpneévas 
“ABpadp tév mpomaropa wyav 
kava odpxa; ef yap “Afpadu éf 
Epyor édcKarw6n, Exe: kavxnua. 

Rom. iv. 20 els 52 tiv éxaryyeAiav 
Tov Geod ov Siexpidn TH amozig, 
@QN eveivvapwon TH wisTe, 


Rom. v. 3-5 xavxwpcba by ais 
Ortleow, eliéres Ste 4 OATS bTO- 
Hoviy xarepyaCerat, } St bwopovy 
Goxipny, } 6 Soxepy édmida 7 
82 Amis ob xaTacyxive, Sr ayamq 
Tov Ocov éxxéxuTas, 


James iv. II pi) earadaXeire dAAH- 
Aav, ddcAgot. 6 kaTadaddy adeAgod, 
ke pivay Tov adedpov avtov, caTadadel 
vopou, kai kpiver vopov: ef 5? vopor x pi- 
Vets, OK Ef TOTS Vop“oU, GAAG KpLTHS. 


James i. 22 yivec@e 8 woinrai 
Adyou, «al pt) udvoy GkpoaTtai wapa- 
Aoyi(opevor EauTous. 


James ii. a1 ‘ABpadp 3 warip 
Hu@v ovw &f Epyov éd:earwOn, 
avevéykas “Icade tov vidy abtow éxi 73 
Guc.agTH pov 5 


James i. 6 alreitw 8 & aicra 
pndev diaxpwdpevos 6 yap d:axpivé- 
Bevos éoue KAvSam Oadrdcons ayvap- 
(opévy wal simi Copéery. 


James i. 2-4 macay xapdy Hyjoacbe 
Grav weipacpols wepiméanTe Woixidors, 
yivwoxortes 6Tt TO Soki poy bya THs 
wiotews karepyateTrar bTOpOV TY. 7 58 
< ‘Si ow Zz 2 Ld - = 
UTOLOVT Epyov TEAGLOV EXETW, Wa ATE 
TEACLOL. 


* The LXX of Dent. xxxii. 35 reads év jucpg éxduchoees dvrasodéow, Sav 


EGaAz 6 zods abtav. 


Ixxvili EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (§ 8. 


Rom. vii. 23 BAémm 32 Erepov vép0v James iv. 2 wéGev médepor wal w50er 
& ois pérAeot pov, dvriatpa- pdya & dpiv; ob« evredOev, tx Tar 
Tevdpevov TO vip TOD vods pov,  dovav byway Tay oT patevopevar ep 
kal aixpadrmrivovra petv TO vépmrys ois péAEouv ipav; 
dpaprias TG ovrt év Tots péA€ot pov. 


Rom. xiii. 12 dmodcpyeOa ob James i. 21 dro@éperot wacar 
7a Epya Tov oxdrous, évivowpeba B& pumapiay Kal mepiccetay kaklas by o, 
7a. StAa Tov pads. tm défacbe Tov Eupurov Adyow TOY 


duvdpevov Hoa Tas Yuxas bpar. 


We may be expressing an excessive scepticism, but these resem- 
blances seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing, and the 
priority of St. James cannot be proved. The problem of literary 
indebtedness is always a delicate one; it is very difficult to find 
a definite objective standpoint; and writers of competence draw 
exactly opposite conclusions from the same facts. In order to 
justify our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances 
in phraseology between two Christian writers do not necessarily 
imply literary connexion. The contrast between dxpoarai and mo:rat 
was not made by either St. Paul or St. James for the first time ; 
metaphors like @noavpi¢ets, expressions like év epg. opyys compared 
with év nucpa odayns (both occur in the O.T.), the phrase vduos 
édevOepias might all have independent sources. Nor are there 
any passages where we find the same order of thought {as in 
1 Peter) or the same passage of the O.T. quoted with the same 
variations—either of which would form stronger evidence. The 
resemblance is closest in Rom. v. 3-5 = James i. 2-4 and in 
Rom. vii. 23 = James iv. 1, but these are not sufficient by them- 
selves to establish a case. 

Again, if we turn to the polemical passages, we may admit 
that ‘Paul betrays a consciousness that Abraham had been cited 
as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word 
Aoyifouat is inconsistent with this.’ But the controversy must have 
been carried on elsewhere than in these writings, and it is equally 
probable that both alike may be dealing with the problem as it 
came before them for discussion or as it was inherited from the 
schools of the Rabbis (see further the note on p. 102). There is, 
we may add, no marked resemblance in style in the controversial 
passage further than would be the necessary result of dealing 
with the same subject-matter. There is nothing decisive to prove 
obligation on the part of either Epistle to the other or to prove 
the priority of either. The two Epistles were written in the same 
small and growing community which had inherited or created 
a phraseology of its own, and in which certain questions early 
acquired prominence. It is quite possible that the Epistle of 
St. James deals with the same controversy as does that to the 
Romans; it may even possibly be directed against St. Paul’s 
teaching or the teaching of St. Paul’s followers; but there is no 


§ 8.] LITERARY HISTORY Ixxtx 


proof that either Epistle was written with a knowledge of the 
other. There are no resemblances in style sufficient to prove literary 
connexion. 

One other book of the N.T. may just be mentioned. If the 
doxology at the end of Jude be compared with that at the end of 
Romans it is difficult to believe that they are quite independent. 
It may be that they follow a common form derived from Jewish 
doxologies, but it is more probable that the concluding verses of 
the Romans formed a model which was widely adopted in the 
Christian Church. We certainly seem to find doxologies of the 
same type as these two in 1 Clem.-Rom. lxiv, Ixv. 2; JJart. Polyc. 
Xx ; it is followed also in Eph. iii. 20. The resemblance in form 
of the doxologies may be seen by comparing them with one 
another. 

Rom. xvi. 35-27 T@ 32 d3vva- Jude 24, 25 7H 82 Svvapéve 
hivy tyas ornpifa... pwdvm  gvddta tuas amraicrous, kat oTHoas 

Copy Beg, Bia "Inaod Xprorob, ...Gpmpous...pdvy Oe@ ooryp 

[8] 9 3éga els rods aldvas. Hudv, da "In god Xpiarod Tov Kupiov 

Hua, ddéfa, peyadkwovvn, patos kat 
éfovgia, mpd mayTos Tov aidvos Kat viv 
waleis wavTas Tovs aigvas, ayn. 


When we enter the sub-apostolic age the testimony to the use 
.if the Epistle is full and ample. The references to it in Clement of 
.tome are numerous. We can go further than this, the discus- 
sions ON mions and Sixatocivy (see p. 147) show clearly that Clement 
used this Epistle at any rate as a theological authority. Bishop 
Lightfoot has well pointed out how he appears as reconciling and 
cumbining four different types of Apostolic teaching. ‘he Apostles 
belong to an older generation, their writings have become subjects 
oi discussion. Clement is already beginning to build up, however 
madequately, a Christian theology combining the teaching of the 
diferent writers of an earlier period. If we turn to Ignatius’ 
letters what will strike us is that the words and ideas of the Apostle 
have become incorporated with the mind of the writer. It is not 
so much that he quotes as that he can never break away from 
the circle of Apostolic ideas. The books of the N.T. have given 
aim his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. Polycarp 
quo.es more freely and more definitely. His Epistle is almost 
acento of N.T. passages, and among them are undoubted quota- 
tions trom the Romans. As the quotations of Polycarp come from 
Ron, x Cor. 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 1 Tim., 2 Tim, it is 
diffiart not to believe that he possessed and made use of a collec- 
tion ot the Pauline Epistles. Corroborative evidence of this might 
be fuand in the desire he shows to make a collection of the letters 
of Ignatius. He would be more likely to do this if he already pos- 
sesseu collections of letters; and it is really impossible to maintain 


lxxx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


[gs 
that the Ignatian letters were formed into one collection before 
those of St. Paul had been. Assuming then, as we are entitled to 
do, that the Apostolic Fathers represent the first quarter of the 
second century we find the Epistle to the Romans at that time 
widely read, treated as a standard authority on Apostolic teaching, 
and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters. 

The following are quotations and reminiscences of the Epistle 


in Clement of Rome: 


Rom. i. a1 éoxorlaOn } dov- 
veTos avTa@y Kapdia. 


Rom. ii. 24 7d yap Gvopa tov 
cod 5 buds BAaohynpetrar ev 
Tots €Oveowv, Kadws yéypaTTat. 

Rom. iv. 7 “Mardpior dy agé- 
Onoav ai dvoptar wal dv éme- 
wadvpOnoav ai duapria 

8 pakaptos advip & ov ph 
Aoyionrat Kuptos dpapriay.” 

9 6 pakapitopds ow ovTas 
émi riyv mepitopnv; h Kat én tiv 
axpoBvotiay; 

Rom. vi. 1 ti otv épodpev; 
émpéevwpev TH apaptia, iva 4 xapis 
TA€OVaGD ; pi) yévolTo. 


Rom. i. 29 wemAnpopevous macp 
dd.kia, wovnpia, TAcovegig, Kakia, 
peotous pOdvov, pévov, Eprdos, 5d- 
Aov,kakonOeias,WiOuptaTas,Ka- 
TaddAous, PeoaTuyeits, UBptotas, 
tbrepnpavous, ddalovas, épeupe- 
Tas KakOv, yovedow ameGeis, aovv€- 
Tous, dovvO<eTous, doTdpyous, aveden- 
povas* oitives, TO Sikaimpa TOD Q€ovd 
émyvovres, OTt of TA ToLtadTa 
mpagaovtes Gfior Oavarou eciciv, 
ov pévov aiTa moovaw, adda ral 
auvevdokovaty Tos mpaccovat. 

Rom. ix. 4, 5 &v...% Aatpela 
wal ai émayyeAia, av ol marépes, kak 
é¢ Gv 6 Xpiards TO waTa oapea. 


Rom. xiii. 1,2 waa yx?) efov- 
Gius imepexovcas bmotaccécbw* ov 
yap éstw efovaia ei pr) md cod, ai 
dé otoa HTd cod TerTaypéevat eloiv 
Gore 6 ayritaccépevos TH efousig 


Clem. 36 3a rovrov 4 dovveros 
wal égkoTwpévyn diavoia yay dvo- 
OadAc els 7d Oavpacrov abrov pas. 

Clem. 51. da 1d oGHAnpyvOnva 
aitay rds dovvérevs capdias. 


Clem. 47 Sore nat BAagHpnpias 
émpépecbar TH dvdpare Kupiov da 
Tiv bpetépav appootvyy. 

Clem. 50 Makdpios Gv adé- 
Onoav ai dvopias kai dv éwexa- 
AvPOnagayv ai duapriav paxadpios 
dvijp @ ov pi Aoylonra Kupros 
adpaptiav, ovdé om ev 7H orépart 
avtod déA0s. obdTos 6 pakapiopos 
éyévero émt Tous exAeAeypevous $d TOU 
@cov K.T.A, 


Clem. 33 Ti ody womjowpev, aded- 
poi; apyncwpe and THs aya0omotas 
wat éyxaTadeinopev Thy ayannv; pn- 
Oapais rovro éacat 6 Seandrys Ep’ Hpiv 
ye yernojvat. 

Clem. 35 doppipavres dp’ éavtay 
macav ddikiav Kai dvopiav, mA€o- 
vetiav, Epe:s, kaxonOeias TE Kal 
5dAous, prOuptopous Te Kat KaTa- 
AaArds, OeooTruylav,imepnpaviay 
Te kal ddaloveiar, Kevodofiay Te xal 
dpirofeviav, tatta yap of mpao- 
covTeEs oTvynTo THY Oe@ bmapxovaw 
ov povoy de of mpadaaovres aura, 
GAG kai of cuvevdoKovrres avrois. 


Clem. 32 & avrod ydp lepets mat 
Acvira: mavtes of AetToupyouvTes TH 
Ovoiactnpiy tov @cov' ef avTov 6 
Kupios “Ingots 7d ward capna ef 
avtod Bacidcis Kal dpxovres «al tyou- 
pevos kata Tov Iovdav. 

Clem. 61 av, déomora, ESaxas Thy 
éfovciay THs BaciWelas avrois ba Tov 
peyadomperois Kal dvexdinyntov Kpa- 
Tous gov, eis TO ywwoKovTas has TP 
imd cod aitois Sedopévgy Sdter wal 


§ 8.] 


Tp ToD Gcov Rarayy avOcornev* of 
8 avOcarnKdTEs éavTois Kpipa Ah- 
ypovrat. 


LITERARY HISTORY 


Ixxxt 


Tiphy troracocoOa avrois, pydevy évay- 
Ttoupévous T@ OeAnpari gov. 


References in the letters of Ignatius are the following: 


Rom. i. 3 70d -yevopevov ex onép- 
patos AaBid Kata odpka, Tov 
épiodevros viod Ocov &y Suvaper. 

Rom. ii. 24. 

Rom. ili. 27 zod obv 4} kavxners; 


Rom. vi. 4 ov7m Kat pets ew 
@aivornre (w7s mepimaTnowper. 


Rom. vi. 5 ; viii. 17, 29. 


Rom. vi. 17 els 8» wapedd6n7e 
Tbmov d1dax7s. 


Rom. vii. 6 dare dovrAcvew pas 
év KawdrnTt TvevpaTos Kal ov TaAQd- 
THTL ypapparos. 

Rom. viii. 11 6 éyelpas X. 'L 
de vexpar. 


Rom. ix. 23 axed éAcous & mpo- 
HToipacev els Sdgav. 


Rom, xiv. 17 ov yap toTw 


Baciheia Tov @cod Bpaois war 
méots. 


Rom, xv. 5 70 avrd ¢gpoveiv ev 
adAnAos Kara, X. "I. 


Smyr. I dAn@as ovta éx -yévous 
AaBid xara capa, vidy Beot 
Kata OéAnpa Kal S¥vapiv. 


Cf. Trall. 8 (both quote O. T.). 


Eph. 18 rod kavxyots TaY deyo- 
pevowv auveTar ; 

(Close to a quotation of 1 Cor. i. 20.) 

Eph. 19 @cod dvO@pwrives pavepov- 
pévou els satvdtnTa aidiou (w7s. 

Mag. 5 &’ ov édy pr) avOapérws 
éxapev 7d adroOavety cis TO avTov 
wa0os, TO (AY avTod ovK EoTLY ev HIV. 

Trall. 9 Kata 76 époiwpa ds Kal 7uaGs 
Tovs TiaTEVoVTAS AVT@ ovTws eyepel 6 
maTip avTod év X. I., o¥ xwpis 7d 
adnOwov Cav ov Exopev. 

Mag. 6 cis tUmov xat Sidaxnv 
ap@apscias. 

Mag. 9 of éy wadaois mpaypyact 
dvaotpagpevtes els KawornTa éAmidos 
HAGov. 

Trall. 9 8s wat dAnO@s jyépOn amd 
vekp@v, éyeipavtTos auToy Tov 
maT pos avTov. 

Eph. 9 mponropacpévos els olko- 
Soprjv @cov maT pés. 


Trall. 2 ob yap Bpwpdtrov wat 
woT@y eiotv SiaKovor. 


Eph. 1 éy evxouar Kard "I. X. tas 
dyarav, kat mavTas buds avT@ ev dpod 
THT élvat. 


The following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp: 


Rom. vi. 13 xat Td péAn tpar 
SmAa@ Sikaocuvys. 

Rom. xiii, 12 évdvowpeda be 
Ta STA TOU partés. 


Rom. xii. 10 77 PidadeAglia 
eis dAAHAOUS piddoTopyo., TH 
Tipp GAANAOUS Tponyovpevot. 


Rom. xiii. 8 6 ydp ayanav Tov 
Erepoy vopov wETANpPWKEV K.T.A. 


Pol. 4 6tAtow@peOa Tots SaAoes 
THs Sisarocurnys. 


Pol. 10 fraternitatis amatores 
diligentes tnvicem, in veritate sociati, 
mansuetudinem Domini a/lerutré 
praestolentes, nullum despicientes. 

Pol. 3 édy yap tus TovTwy evTds F 
PETANpwKEY EvTOANY Sikaoovvys’ G 
yap éxov dyaany pakpay éoTw aaons 
Guaprias. 


Ixxxii 


Rom. xiv. 10 mavres yap mapa- 
otnodpeda To Bh pare Tov Ocov 


“Ta dpa [otv| éxacros hudv rept 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


[§ 6. 


Pol. 6 wal waévras de gapa- 
orijva: TS Bhyate Tov Xprorov, 
kal éxacrov imp tavrod Adyor 
Sotvas. 


davrot Adyor 3Hce:7 [rg @cH]*. 


It is hardly worth while to give evidence in detail from later 
authors. We find distinct reminiscences of the Romans in Aristides 
and in Justin Martyr‘. Very interesting also is the evidence of the 
heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the Refufatio omnium 
haeresium ; it would of course be of greater value if we could fix 
with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. We 
find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naas- 
senes 5, the Valentinians of the Italian school, and to Basileides’. 
In the last writer the use made of Rom. v. 13, 14 and viii. 19, 22 
is exceedingly curious and interesting. 

If we turn to another direction we find interesting evidence of 
a kind which has not as yet been fully considered or estimated. 
The series of quotations appended from the Testament of the 
Twelve Patriarchs can hardly be explained on any other hypo- 
thesis than that the writer was closely acquainted with the Epistle 
to the Romans. This is not the place to enter into the various 
critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concern- 
ing that work, but it may be noticed here— 

(1) That the writer makes use of a considerable number of 
books of the N. T. The resemblances are not confined to the 
writings of St. Paul. 

(2) That the quotations occur over a very considerable portion 
of the book, both in passages omitted in some MSS. and in 
passages which might be supposed to belong to older works. 

(3) The book is probably older than the time of Tertullian, 
while the crude character of the Christology would suggest a con- 
siderably earlier date. 


Rom. i. 4 700 épiabevTos viod @cod 
év Suvape xaTd mvedpa aytar 
GUTS... 


Rom. ii. 13 ov ydp of dxpoarat 
vépou Sixa:o: Tapa T@ Beg. 


* rod Xpicrod Western and Syrian. 
2 Grodwoe BD FG. 
8 t@ Oc om. BF G. 


Test. Levi. 18 «al wved pa dyta 
ouvns éoTa én’ auTols. ..» 


Test. Aser. 4 of ydp dyael dvdpes 
.... Sbeacol elas wapa TE Oeg. 


* Rom. ii. 4 = Dial. 47; Rom. iii. 11-17 = Dial. 27; Rom. iv. 3 = Dial. 23; 
Rom. ix. 7 = Dial. 44; Rom. ix. 27-29 = Dial, 32, 55, 64; Rom. x. 18 = 
Apol. i. 40; Rom. xi. 2, 3 = Dial. 39. 

5 Hipp. Ref. v. 7, pp. 138. 64-140. 76 = Rom. i, 20-26 

* Ibid. vi. 36, p. 286. g-ro = Rom. viii. 11. 

" Ibid. vii. 25, p. 370. 80 = Rom. v. 13, 14; ibid. p. 368. 75 = Rom. vili, 
19, 22. 


§8.] 


Rom. vy. 6 ért yap Xpiords dvTov 
huay aobevav Er Kata xapdy brep 
doeBay aréGarve, 

Rom. vi. 1 éwipévwper rH 
dyuaprig. 

Rom. vi. 7 6 ydp dmobavay 
Sedieaiwra: ard THs Guaprias. 

Rom. vii. 8 dgopyiv 52 AaBodca 
} duapria ia tTHS EvToOARs Ka- 
Teipyacaro év épuol macay émOupiav. 

Rom. viii. 28 otSayev 5 Gn Tots 
ayanGai Tov Ccdv mavta cur- 
epyet eis dyad. 

Rom. ix. a1 7 ot Exe éfovoiav 
6 Kepapeds Tod mHAOD, ex TOD ad- 
Tov pupaparos rojoa 8 pey eis tipi 
oxevos, 8 3% els dripiav; 


Rom. xii. 1 rapacrfjca: ra ohpata 
bpaw bvciay (aoa, ayiav, evapecrov 
TP eG, THY AoyiK}Y Aartpéelay 
bpar. 

Rom. xii. 21 pa) vix® id 700 Kaxod, 
@Aa vika ty rH dya0S74 Kakdv. 

Rom. xiii. 12 dro@dpe0a ody Ta 
€pya Tov oxdTous, évivowpeba de 
Ta Smda TOU uwrés. 

Rom. xv. 33 6 8% eds rijs 
elpnyns pera mavTow byaw. 

Rom. xvi. 20 6 5¢ eds ris elphyns 
cuytpives tov Satavay xd Trois 
wédas tpow év Taxe. 


LITERARY HISTORY 


lexxiii 


Test. Benj. 3 dvaydpryros bwtp 
doeBay arodavetra. 

Test. Levi. 4 of dv@pwro: dmorotvres 
éwipevodory éy tais ddicias, 

Test. Sym. 6 Smws 5:xa1w0d awd 
THs duaptias tav Yuya bya. 

Test. Neph. 8 «at So évrodal 
eiow kal ef pt yévowrat ev Tage abTaY, 
dpuaprlav mapéxovory. 

Test. Benj. 4.6 dya@oTvo1dv...79 
dyan@vti Tov Ocdv auvepyet. 


Test. Neph. 2 ca6as yap 6 kepapeds 
olde +d KES, Téc0v ywpei, Kal mpds 
avroy dépa mnAdy, ota kal 6 Kuptos 
mpos Guoiwmow Tov mvedpatos moet 7d 
capa, 

Test. Levi 3 mpoogépovar 5 Kupiy 
dcpiv evwdias AoyiKIY Kal dyral- 
paxtov mpoopopay, 


Test. Benj. 4 otras 6 dya@orody 
vikG@ TO Kakéy, 

Test. Neph. 2 otras ot5t dv oxdres 
duvjcecbe Torjoa Epya pwrés. 


Test. Dan. 5 €xovres Tov @edy ris 
elpnv7s. 

Test. Aser. 7 xai év fovxia our- 
TpiBav Thy Kepadry Tod SpaxovTos 
&? D5aros. 


So tar we have had no direct citation from the Epistle by name. 
Although Clement refers expressly to the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians, and Ignatius may refer to an Epistle to the Ephesians, 
neither they nor Polycarp, nor in fact any other writer, expressly 
mentions Romans. It is with Marcion (¢c. 140) that we obtain 
our first direct evidence. Romans was one of the ten Epistles 
he included in his Afoséolicon, ascribing it directly to St. Paul. 
Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of 
making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. The very fact, as 
Zahn points out, that he gives the same short titles to the Epistles 
that we find in our oldest MSS. (xpos pawyaiovs) implies that these 
had formed part of a collection. Such a title would not be 
sufficient unless the books were included in a collection which had 
a distinguishing title of its own. In the Afosfolicon of Marcion the 
Epistles were arranged in the following order: (1) Gal., (2) 1 Cor., 
(3) 2 Cor, (4) Rom., (5) 1 Thess., (6) 2 Thess., (7) Laodic. = 
Ephes., (8) Col., (9) Phil., (10) Philem. The origin of this 


Ixxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8. 


arrangement we cannot conjecture with any certainty; but it may 
be noted that the Epistle placed first—the Galatians—is the one on 
which Marcion primarily rested his case and in which the anti- 
judaism of St. Paul is most prominent, while the four Epistles of the 
Captivity are grouped together at the conclusion. Another interest- 
ing point is the text of the Epistles used by Marcion. We need 
not stop to discuss the question whether the charge against Marcion 
of excising large portions of the Epistles is correct. That he did 
so is undoubted. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps. 
i. 1g-ii. 1; ili. 31-iv. 25; ix. 1-33; x. 5-xi. 32: xv.—xvi. Nor 
again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in 
order to harmonize the teaching with his own. For instance, in 
x. 2, 3 he seems to have read dyvoodvres yap rov Gcdv. Both these 
statements must be admitted. But two further questions remain ; 
Can we in any case arrive at the text of the Epistles used by 
Marcion, and has Marcion’s text influenced the variations of our 
MSS.? An interesting reading from this point of view is the omis- 
sion of mpéroy in i. 16 (see the notes. p. 24). Is this a case where 
his reading has influenced our MSS., or does he preserve an early 
variation or even the original text ? 

We need not pursue the history of the Epistle further. From the 
time of Irenaeus onwards we have full and complete citations in 
all the Church writers. The Epistle is recognized as being by 
St. Paul, is looked upon as canonical', and is a groundwork of 
Christian theology. 

One more question remains to be discussed—its place in the 
collection of St. Paul’s Epistles. According to the Muratorian 
fragment on the Canon the Epistles of St. Paul were early divided 
into two groups, those to churches and those to individuals ; and 
this division permanently influenced the arrangement in the Canon, 
accounting of course incidentally for the varying place occupied by 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is with the former group only that 
we are concerned, and here we find that there is a very marked 
variation in the order. Speaking roughly the earlier lists all place 
the Epistle to the Romans at the end of the collection, whilst later 
lists, as for example the Canon of the received text, place it 
at the beginning. 

For the earlier list our principal evidence is the Muratorian 
fragment on the Canon: cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, sequens 
prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem, nonnist nominatim septem ecclesits 
scribat ordine tali: ad Corinthios (prima). ad Ephesios (secunda), ad 
Philippenses (tertia), ad Colossenses (quarta), ad Galatas (guinia), ad 
Thessalonicenses (sexta), ad Romanos (sepiima). Nor does this 

' On Harnack’s theory that the Pauline Epistles had at the close of the 


second century less canonical authority than the Gospels, see Sanday, Bampton 
Lectures, pp. 20, 66, 


§ 9.] INTEGRITY Ixxxv 


stand alone. The same place apparently was occupied by Romans 
in the collection used by Tertullian, probably in that of Cyprian. 
It is suggested that it influenced the order of Marcion, who per- 
haps found in his copy of the Epistles Corinthians standing first, 
while the position of Romans at the end may be implied in 
a passage of Origen. 

The later order (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.) is 
that of all writers from the fourth century onwards, and, with the 
exception of changes caused by the insertion of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and of certain small variations which do not affect the 
point under discussion, of all Greek MSS., and of all MSS. of 
Versions. ‘This widespread testimony implies an early date. But 
the arrangement is clearly not traditional. It is roughly based on 
the length of the Epistles, the Romans coming first as being the 
longer. 

The origin of the early order is by no means clear. Zahn’s 
conjecture, that it arose from the fact that the collection of Pauline 
Epistles was first made at Corinth, is ingenious but not conclusive, 
while Clem. Rom. 47, which he cites in support of his theory, will 
hardly prove as much as he wishes’. 

To sum up briefly. During the first century the Epistle to the 
Romans was known and used in Rome and perhaps elsewhere. 
During the first quarter of the second century we find it forming 
part of a collection of Pauline Epistles used by the principal Church 
writers of that time in Antioch, in Rome, in Smyrna, probably also 
in Corinth. By the middle of that century it had been included in 
an abbreviated form in Marcion’s Afostolicon; by the end it appears 
to be definitely accepted as canonical. 


§ 9. INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. 


The survey which has been given of the literary history of the Epistle to 
the Romans makes it perfectly clear that the external evidence in favour of its 
early date is not only relatively but absolutely very strong. Setting aside 
doubtful quotations, almost every Christian writer of the early part of the 
second century makes use of it; it was contained in Marcion’s canon; and 
when Christian literature becomes extensive, the quotations are almost 
numerous enough to enable us to reconstruct the whole Epistle. So strong 
is this evidence and so clear are the internal marks of authenticity that the 
Epistle (with the exception of the last two chapters of which we shall speak 
presently) has been almost universally admitted to be a genuine work of 
St.Paul. It was accepted as such by Baur, and in consequence by all members 
of the Tiibingen school; it is accepted at the present day by critics of every 
variety of opinion, by Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Lipsius, Harnack, 
as definitely as by those who are usually classed as conservative. 


‘ On this subject see Zahn, Geschichte, &c., ii. p. 344. 


Ixxxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


To this general acceptance there have been few exceptions. The earliest write1 
who denied the genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been the English- 
man Evanson (1792). The arguments on which he relied are mainly historical. 
The Epistle implies the existence of a Church in Rome, but we know from the 
Acts that no such Church existed. Equally impossible is it that St. Paul 
should have known such a number of persons in Rome, or that Aguila 
and Priscilla should have been there at this time. He interprets xvi. 13 
literally, and asks why the aged mother of the Apostle should have wandered 
to Rome. He thinks that xi. 12, 15,21, 22 must have been written after the 
fall of Jerusalem’. The same thesis was maintained by Bruno Bauer?, and 
has been revived at the present day by certain Dutch and Swiss theologians, 
notably Loman and Steck. 

Loman (1882) denied the historical reality of Christ, and considered that all 
the Pauline Epistles dated from the second century. Christianity itself was *he 
embodiment of certain Jewish ideas. St. Paul was a real person who lived at 
the time usually ascribed to him, but he did not write the Epistles which bear 
his name. That he should have done so at such an early period in the history 
of Christianity would demand a miracle to account for its history ; a statement 
which we need not trouble ourselves to refute. Loman’s arguments appear to 
be the silence of the Acts, and in the case of the Romans the inconsistency of 
the various sections with one another’; the differences of opinion which had arisen 
with regard to the composition of the Roman Church prove (he argues) that 
there is no clear historical situation implied *. Steck (1888) has devoted himself 
primarily to the Epistle to the Galatians which he condemns as inconsistent 
with the Acts of the Apostles, and as dependent upon the other leading Epistles, 
but he incidentally examines these also. All alike he puts in the second 
century, arranging them in the following order:—Romans, 1 Corinthians, 
2 Corinthians, Galatians. All alike are he says built up under the influence of 
Jewish and Heathen writers, and he finds passages in the Romans borrowed 
from Philo, Seneca, and Jewish Apocryphal works to which he assigns a late 
date—such as the Assumptio Mosts and 4 Ezra*. Akin to these theories 
which deny completely the genuineness of the Epistle, are similar ones also 
having their origin for the most part in Holland, which find large interpolations 
in our present text and profess to distinguish different recensions. Earliest of 
these was Weisse (1867), who in addition to certain more reasonable theories 
with regard to the concluding chapters, professed to be able to distinguish by 
the evidence of style the genuine from the interpolated portions of the Epistle ®*. 
His example has been followed with greater indiscreetness by Pierson and 
Naber (1886), Michelsen (1886), Voelter (1889, 90), Van Manen (1891). 

Pierson and Naber® basing their theory on some slight allusions in Josephus, 
consider that there existed about the beginning of the Christian era a school 
of elevated Jewish thinkers, who produced a large number of apparently 
fragmentary works distinguished by their lofty religious tone. These were 
made use of by a certain Paulus Episcopus, a Christian who incorporated them 


1 Evanson (Edward), Zhe Dissonance of the four generally recetved Evan- 
gelists examined, Ed. 1, 1792, pp. 257-261; Ed. 2, 1805, pp. 306-312. 

2 Bruno Bauer, Aritek der paul. Briefe, 1852. Christus und die Casaren, 
P- 372. 
3 Loman (A. D.), Quaesttones Paulinae, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882, 1883, 
1886. 

* Steck (Rudolf), Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht. Berlin, 
1888. 

® Weisse (C. H.), Bettrige zur Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe an dis 
Galater, Rimer, Philipper und Kolosser. Leipzig, 1867. 

© Verisimilia, Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exhibentia. A. Pierson, 
et S. A. Naber, Amstelodami, 1586. 


§ 9.) INTEGRITY Ixxxvii 


in letters which he wrote in order to make up tor his own poverty of religious 
and philosophical ideas. An examination of their treatment of a single chapter 
may be appended. The basis of ch. vi is a Jewish fragment (a&modum 
memorabile) which extends from ver. 3 to ver. 11. This fragment Paulus 
Episcopus treated in his usual manner. He begins with the foolish question 
of ver. 2 which shows that- he does not understand the argument that follows. 
He added interpolations in ver. 4. Jtidem odoramur manum eius ver. 5. 
If we omit 7¢ dépormpar: in ver. 6 the difficulty in it vanishes. Ver. 8 again is 
feeble and therefore was the work of Paulus Episcopus: on enim credimus 
mos esse victtsros, sed novimus nos vivere (ver. 11). Vv. 11-23 with the ex- 
ception apparently of ver. 14, 15 which have been misplaced, are the work 
of this interpolator who spoiled the Jewish fragment, and in these verses 
adapts what has preceded to the uses of the Church’. It will probably not 
be thought necessary to pursue this subject further. 

Michelsen? basing his theory to a certain extent on the phenomena of the 
last two chapters considered that towards the end of the second century 
three recensions of the Epistle were in existence. The Eastern containing 
ch. i-xvi. 24; the Western ch. i-xiv and xvi. 25-27; the Marcionite ch. 
i-xiv. The redactor who put together these recensions was however also 
responsible for a considerable number of interpolations which Michelsen 
undertakes to distinguish. Vd6lter’s* theory is more elaborate. The original 
Epistle according to him contained the following portions of the Epistle. 
i. 1a, 7; 5,6; 8-17; v. and vi. (except v. 13, 14, 20; vi. 14, 15); xii, xiii; 
XV. 14-32; Xvi. 21-23. This bears all the marks of originality; its Christology 
is primitive, free from any theory of pre-existence or of two natures. To the 
first interpolator we owe i. 18; iii. 20 (except ii. 14, 15); viii. I, 3-39; 
i. tb-4. Here the Christology is different; Christ is the pre-existent Son of 
God. To the second interpolator we owe iii. 2I—iv. 25; v. 13, 14, 203 vi. 
14, 15; vii. 1-6; ix. x; xiv. :—xv.6. This writer who worked about the year 
70 was a determined Antinomian, who could not see anything but evil in the 
Law. A third interpolator is responsible for vii. 7-25; viii. 2; a fourth for 
xi; ii. 14,15; xv. 7-13; a fifth for xvi. I-20; a sixth for xvi. 24; a scventh 
for xvi. 25-27. 

Van Manen * is distinguished for his vigorous attacks on his predecessors ; and 
for basing his own theory of interpolations on a reconstruction of the Marcionite 
text which he holds to be original. 

It has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories, which will 
seem probably to most readers hardly worth while repeating; so subjective 
and arbitrary is the whole criticism. The only conclusion that we can arrive 
at is that if early Christian documents have been systematically tampered with 
in a manner which would justify any one of these theories, then the study of 
Christian history would be iutile. There is no criterion of style or of language 
which enables us to distinguish a document from the interpolations, and we 
should be compelled to make use of a number of writings which we could not 
either trust or criticize. If the documents are not trustworthy, neither is our 
criticism. 

But such a feeling of distrust is not necessary, and it may be worth while to 
conclude this subject by pointing out certain reasons which enable us to feel 
confident in most at any rate of the documents of early Christianity. 


1 OP. ctt., pp. 139-143. : 

3 Michelsen (J. H. A.), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1886, pp. 372 f£., 473 ff.5 
1887, p. 163 ff. 

= A Fetter (Daniel), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1889, p. 265 ff.; and D#e Com- 
position der paul. Hauptbriefe, I. Der Rimer- und Ga'aterbrief, 1890. 

* Van Manen (W.C.), Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1887. Alarcion’s Brief van 
Paulus aan de Galatizs, pp. 382-404, 451-533; and Paulus 1, De brief 
aan de Komeinen. Leiden, 1891. 


Ixxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


It has been pointed out that interpolation theories are not as absurd as they 
might prima facie be held to be, for we have instances of the process actually 
taking place. The obvious examples are the Ignatian letters. But these are 
not solitary, almost the whole of the Apocryphal literature has undergone the 
same process; so have the Acts of the Saints; so has the Didache for example 
when included in the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor are we without evidence of 
interpolations in the N.T.; the phenomenon of the Western text presents 
exactly the same characteristics. May we not then expect the same to have 
happened in other cases where we have little or no information? Now in 
dealing with a document which has come down to us in a single MS. or 
version, or on any slight traditional evidence this possibility must always be 
considered, and it is necessary to be cautious in arguing from a single passage 
ina text which may have been interpolated. Those who doubted the genuineness 
of the Armenian fragment of Aristides for example, on the grounds that it 
contained the word Theotokos, have been proved to be wrong, for that word as 
was suspected by many has now been shown to have been interpolated. 
But in the case of the N. T. we have so many authorities going back in- 
dependently to such an early period, that it is most improbable that any 
important variation in the text could escape our knowledge. The different 
lines of text in St. Paul’s Epistles must have separated as early as the 
beginning of the second century ; and we shall see shortly that one displacement 
in the text, which must have been early, and may have been very early, has 
influenced almost all subsequent documents. The number, the variety, and 
the early character of the texts preserved to us in MSS., Versions, and Fathers, 
is a guarantee that a text formed on critical methods represents within very 
narrow limits the work as it left its author’s hands. 

A second line of argument which is used in favour of interpolation theories 
is the difficulty and obscurity of some passages. No doubt there are passages 
which are difficult; but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything 
which is genuine is easy. The whole tendency of textual criticism is to prove 
that it is the custom of ‘ redactors’ or ‘correctors’ or ‘ interpolators’ to produce 
a text which is always superficially at any rate more easy than the genuine 
text. But on the other side, although the style of St. Paul is certainly not 
always perfectly smooth; although he certainly is liable to be carried away by 
a side issue, to change the order of his thoughts, to leap over intermediate 
steps in his argument, yet no serious commentators of whatever school would 
doubt that there is a strong sustained argument running through the whole 
Epistle. The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves 
conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of in- 
terpolation. But in the case of St. Paul we may go further. Even where there 
is a break in the argument, there is almost always a verbal connexion. When 
St. Paul passes for a time to a side issue there is a subtle connexion in thought 
as in words which would certainly escape an interpolator’s observation. This 
has been pointed out in the notes on xi. 10; xv. 20, where the question of 
interpolation has been carefully examined; and if any one will take the 
trouble to go carefully through the end of ch. vy and the beginning of ch. vi, 
he will see how each sentence leads on to the next. For instance, the first 
part of v. 20, which is omitted by some of these critics, leads on immediately 
to the second (mAcovacn .. . émdedvagev), that suggests brepemepiccevcer, then 
comes mAcovdop in vi. 1; but the connexion of sin and death clearly suggests 
the words of ver. 2 and the argument that follows. The same process may 
be worked ont through the whole Epistle. For the most part there is a clear 
and definite argument, and even where the logical continuity is broken there 
is always a connexion either in thought or words. The Epistles of St. Paul 
present for the most part a definite and compact literary unit. 

If to these arguments we add the external evidence which is given in detail 
above, we may feel reasonably confident that the historical conditions under 


§ 9.] INTEGRITY Ixxxix 


which the Epistle has come down to us make the theories of this new school 
of critics untenable '. ; 

We have laid great stress on the complete absence of any textual justifica- 
tions for any of the theories which have been so far noticed. This absence 
is made all the more striking by the existence of certain variations in the text 
and certain facts reported on tradition with regard to the last two chapters of 
the Epistle. These facts are somewhat complex and to a certain extent con- 
flicting, and a careful examination of them and of the theories suggested to 
explain them is necessary *. 

It will be convenient first of all to enumerate these facts: 

(1) The words év ‘Pwyy in i. 7 and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. G 
both in the Greek and Latin text (F is here defective). Moreover the cursive 
47. adds in the margin of ver. 7 Td év “Pw un, ovre ev TH efnynoe ovTE ev TH 
pnT@ pwvnuoveve. Bp. Lightfoot attempted to find corroborative evidence for 
this reading in Origen, in the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, and in the reading 
of D év ayary for dyarnrois. That he is wrong in doing so seems to be shown 
by Dr. Hort; but it may be doubtful if the latter is correct in his attempt to 
explain away the variation. The evidence is slight, but it is hardly likely that 
it arose simply through transcriptional error. If it occurred only in one place 
this might be sufficient ; if it occurred only in one MS. we might ascribe it to 
the delinquencies of a single scribe; as it is, we must accept it as an existing 
variation supported by slight evidence, but evidence sufficiently good to 
demand an explanation. 

(2) There is considerable variation in existing MSS. concerning the place of 
the final doxology (xvi. 25-27). 

a. In NBCDE minusc. pauc. codd. ap. Orig.-lat., def Vulg. Pesh. Boh. 
rot Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. Pelagius it occurs at the end of chap. xvi. and there 
only. 

b. In L minusc. plus quam 200, codd. ap. Orig.-lat., Harcl., Chrys. Theodrt. 
Jo.-Damase. it occurs at the end of chap. xiv and there only. 

c. In AP 5.17 Arm. codd. it is inserted in both places. 

d. In Fer. G codd. ap. Hieron. (2% Eph. iii. 5), g, Marcion (vide infra) it is 
entirely omitted. It may be noted that G leaves a blank space at the end of 
chap. xiv, and that fis taken direct from the Vulgate, a space being left in F 
in the Greek corresponding to these verses. Indirectly D and Sedulius also 
attest the omission by placing the Benediction after ver. 24, a transposition 
which would be made (see below) owing to that verse being in these copies 
at the end of the Epistle. 

In reviewing this evidence it becomes clear (i) that the weight of good 
authority is in favour of placing this doxology at the end of the Epistle, and 
there only. (ii) That the variation in position—a variation which must be 
explained—is early, probably earlier than the time of Origen, although we 
can never have complete confidence in Rufinus’ translation. (iii) That the 
evidence for complete omission goes back to Marcion, and that very probably 
his excision of the words may have influenced the omission in Western 
authorities, 


‘ The English reader will find a very full account of this Dutch school of 
critics in Knowling, Zhe Witness of the Epistles, pp. 133-243. A very 
careful compilation of the results arrived at is given by Dr. Carl Clemen, Dze 
finheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe. To both these works we must 
express our obligations, and to them we must refer any who wish for further 
information. 

2 The leading discussion on the last two chapters of the Romans is con- 
tained in three papers, two by Bp. Lightfoot, and one by Dr. Hort first 
published in the Journal of Philology, vols. ii, iii, and since reprinted in 
Lightfoot, Bzb/ical Essays, pp. 287-374. 


xc EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ ®& 


(3) There is very considerable evidence that Marcion omitted the whole of 
the last two chapters. 

a, Origen (27. Ruf.) x. 43, vol. vii, p. 453, ed. Lomm. writes: Caput hoc 
Marcon, a quo Scripturae Evangelicae atque Apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de 
hac epistola penttus abstulit ; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco, ubi scriptum 
est: omne autem quod non est ex fide, peccatum est: usgue ad finem cuncta 
dissecutt. In alits vero exemplaribus, id est, in his quae non sunt a Marcione 
temerata, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus, in nonnullis etenim 
codicibus post eum locum, quem supra diximus hoc est: omne autem quod non 
est ex fide, peccatum est: statim coherens habetur: ei autem, qui potens est 
vos confirmare. A/iz vero codices in Jine id, ut nunc est positum, continent, 
This extract is quite precise, nor is the attempt made by Hort to emend it at 
all successful. He reads én for ad, having for this the support of a Paris MS., 
and then emends hoe into hic ; reading ef non solum hic sed et im e0 loco, &c., 
and translating ‘and not only here but also,’ at xiv. 23 ‘he cut out everything 
quite to the end.” He applies the words to the Doxology alone. The 
in the text are slight and might be justified, but with this change the words 
that follow become quite meaningless: ssgue ad finem cuncta dissecutt can 
only apply to the whole of the two chapters. If Origen meant the doxology 
alone they would be quite pointless. 

b. But we have other evidence for Marcion’s text. Tertullian, Adv. Mare. v. 
14, quoting the words ¢rzsunal Christi (xiv. 10), states that they occur im 
clausula of the Epistle. The argument is not conclusive but the words 
probably imply that in Marcion’s copy of the Epistle, if not in all those known 
to Tertullian, the last two chapters were omitted. 

These two witnesses make it almost certain that Marcion omitted not only 
the doxology but the whole of the last two chapters. 

(4) Some further evidence has been brought forward suggesting that an 
edition of the Epistle was in circulation which omitted the last two chapters, 

a. It is pointed out that Tertullian, Marcion, Irenaeus, and probably Cyprian 
never quote from these last two chapters. The argument however is of little 
value, because the same may be said of 1 Cor. xvi. The chapters were not 
quoted because there was little or nothing in them to quote. 

b. An argument of greater weight is found in certain systems of capitula- 
tions in MSS. of the Vulgate. In Codex Amiatinus the table of contents gives 
fifty-one sections, and the fiftieth section is described thus: De pertculo con- 
tristante fratrem suum esca sua, et quod non sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed 
tustitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu Sancto ; this is followed by the fifty-first 
and last section, which is described as De mysterio Domini ante passtonem in 
silentio habito, post passionem vero ipsius revelato. The obvious deduction is 
that this system was drawn up for a copy which omitted the greater part at any 
rate of chaps. xy and xvi. This system appears to have prevailed very widely. 
In the Codex Fuldensis there are given in the table of contents fifty-one 
sections: of these the first twenty-three include the whole Epistle up to the 
end of chap. xiv, the last sentence being headed Quod fideles Dei non debeant 
invicem tudicare cum unusquisque secundum regulas mandatorum tpse se 
debeat divino iudicio praeparare ut ante tribunal Dei sine confusione possit 
operum suorum praestare rationem. Then follow the last twenty-eight sections 
of the Amiatine system, beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. 1. Hence 
chaps. ix-xiv are described twice. The scribe seems to have had before him 
an otherwise unrecorded system which only embraced fourteen chapters, and 
then added the remainder from where he could get them in order to make up 
what he felt to be the right number of fifty-one. : 

Both these systems seem to exclude the last two chapters, whatever reason 
we may give for the phenomenon. shee 

(5) Lastly, some critics have discovered a certain amount of significance 
in two other points. 


§ 9.] INTEGRITY xci 


a. The prayer at the end of chap. xv is supposed to represent, either with 
or without the éuny (which is omitted in some MSS., probably incorrectly), a 
conclusion of the Epistle. As a matter of fact the formula does not represent 
any known form of ending, and may be paralleled from places in the body of 
the Epistle. ; 

b. The two conclusions xvi. 20 and 24 of the T R are supposed to represent 
endings to two different recensions of the Epistle. But as will be seen by 
referring to the note on the passage, this is based upon a misreading. The 
reading of the T R is a late conflation of the two older forms of the text. The 
benediction stood originally at ver. 20 and only there, the verses that followed 
being a sort of postscript. Certain MSS. which were without the doxology (see 
above) moved it to their end of the Epistle after ver. 23, while certain others 
placed it after ver. 27. The double benediction of the TR arose by the 
ordinary process of conflation. The significance of this in corroborating the 
existence of an early text which omitted the doxology has been pointed out ; 
otherwise these verses will not support the deductions made from them by 
Renan, Gifford, and others. 

The above, stated as shortly as possible, are the diplomatic facts which 
demand explanation. Already in the seventeenth century some at any rate had 
attracted notice, and Semler (1769), Griesbach (1777) and others developed 
elaborate theories to account for them. To attempt to enumerate all the 
different views would be beside our purpose: it will be more convenient to 
confine ourselves to certain typical illustrations. 

1. An hypothesis which would account for most (although not all) of the 
facts stated would be to suppose that the last two chapters were not genuine. 
This opinion was held by Baur}, although, as was usual with him, on purely 
@ préort grounds, and with an only incidental reference to the MS. evidence 
which might have been the strongest support of his theory. The main motive 
which induced him to excise them was the expression in xv. 8 that Christ was 
made ‘a minister of circumcision,’ which is inconsistent with his view of 
St. Paul’s doctrine; and he supported his contention by a vigorous examina- 
tion of the style and contents of these two chapters. His arguments have beer 
noticed (so far as seemed necessary) in the commentary. But the consensus of 
a large number of critics in condemning the result may excuse our pursuing 
them in further detail. Doctrinally his views were only consistent with a one- 
sided theory of the Pauline position and teaching, and if that theory is giver 
up then his arguments become untenable. As regards his literary criticism the 
opinion of Renan may be accepted: ‘On est surpris qu’un critique auss: 
habile que Baur se soit contenté d’une solution aussi grossiere. Pourquoi ur 
faussaire aurait-il inventé de si insignificants détails? Pourquoi aurait-il ajoute 
4 Pouvrage saecré une liste de noms propres??’. 

But we are not without strong positive arguments in favour of the genuine 
ness of at any rate the fifteenth chapter. In the first place a careful 
examination of the first thirteen verses shows conclusively that they are closely 
connected with the previous chapter. The break after xiv. 23 is purely arbi- 
trary, and the passage that follows to the end of ver. 6 is merely a conclusion 
of the previous argument, without which the former chapter is incomplete, and 
which it is inconceivable that an interpolator could have either been able o1 
desired to insert; while in vv. 7-13 the Apostle connects the special subject 
of which he has been treating with the general condition of the Church, and 
supports his main contention by a series of texts drawn from the O.T, Both 
in the appeal to Scripture and in the introduction of broad and general prin- 
ciples this conclusion may be exactly paralleled by the custom of St. Paul 
elsewhere in the Epistle. No theory therefore can be accepted which does not 


1 Theologische Zeitung, 1836, pp. 97,144. Paulus, 1866, pp. 393 f 
® St. Paul, p. \xxi, quoted by Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. ago. 


xcii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2 


recognize that xiv and xv. 13 form a single paragraph which must not be 
split up. 

aera further than this the remainder of chap. xv shows every sign of being 
a genuine work of the Apostle. The argument of Paley based upon the collec- 
tion for the poor Christians at Jerusalem is in this case almost demonstrative 
(see p.xxxvi). The reference to the Apostle’s intention of visiting Spain, to the 
circumstances in which he is placed, the dangers he is expecting, his hope of 
visiting Rome fulfilled in such a very different manner, are all inconsistent with 
spuriousness; while most readers will feel in the personal touches, in the 
combination of boldness in asserting his mission with consideration for the 
feelings of his readers, in the strong and deep emotions which are occasionally 
allowed to come to the surface, all the most characteristic marks of the 
Apostle’s writing. 

Baur’s views were followed by von Schwegler, Holsten, Zeller, and others, 
but have been rejected by Mangold, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, and 
Lipsius. A modified form is put forward by Lucht?, who considers that parts 
aie genuine and part spurious: in fact he applies the interpolation theory to 
these two chapters (being followed to a slight extent by Lipsius). Against 
any such theory the arguments are conclusive. It has all the disadvantages of 
the broader theory and does not either solve the problem suggested by the manu- 
script evidence or receive support from it. For the rejection of the last two 
chapters as a whole there is some support, as we have seen; for believing that 
they contain interpolations (except in a form to be considered immediately) there 
is no external evidence. There is no greater need for suspecting interpolations 
in chap. xv than in chap. xiv. 

2. We may dismiss then all such theories as imply the spuriousness of the last 
two chapters and may pass on to a second group which explains the pheno 
mena of the MSS. by supposing that our Epistle has grown up through thw 
combination of different letters or parts of letters either all addressed to the 
Roman Church, or addressed partly to the Roman Church, partly elsewhere. 
An elaborate and typical theory of this sort, and one which has the merit of 
explaining all the facts, is that of Renan*. He supposes that the so-called 
Epistle to the Romans was a circular letter and tkat it existed in four different 
forms : 

(i) A letter to the Romans. This contained chap. i-xi and chap. xv. 
(ii) A letter to the Ephesians. Chap. i-xiv and xvi. 1-20, 

(iii) A letter to the Thessalonians. Chap. i-xiv and xvi. 21-24. 
(iv) A letter to an unknown church. Chap. i-xiv and xvi. 25-27. 

In the last three letters there would of course be some modifications in 
chap. i, of which we have a reminiscence in the variations of the MS. G. 

This theory is supported by the following amongst other arguments : 

(i) We know, as in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that St. Paul 
wrote circular letters. (ii) The Epistle as we have it has four endings, xv. 33, 
xvi. 20, 24, 25-27. Each of these really represented the ending of a separate 
Epistle. (iii) There are strong internal grounds for believing that xvi. 1-20 
was addressed to the Ephesian Church. (iv) The Macedonian names occurring 
in xvi. 21-24 suggest that these verses were addressed to a Macedonian 
church. (v) This explains how it came to be that such an elaborate letter 
was sent to a church of which St. Paul had such little knowledge as that 
of Rome. 

This theory has one advantage, that it accounts for all the facts; but there 
are two arguments against it which are absolutely conclusive. One is that 
there are not four endings in the Epistle at all; xv. 33 is not like any of the 


1 Lucht, Ober die beiden letzten Capitel des Rimerbriefs, 1871. 
* Renan, St. Paul, pp. lxiii ff. This theory is examined at great length by 
Bp. Lightfoot, of. czt. pp. 293 ff. 


§ 9.] INTEGRITY xciil 


endings of St. Paul’s Epistles; while, as is shown above, the origin of the 
duplicate benediction, xvi. 20 and 24, must be explained on purely textual 
grounds. If Renan’s theory had been correct then we should not have both 
benedictions in the late MSS. but in the earlier. As it is, it is clear that the 
duplication simply arose from conflation. A second argument, in our opinion 
equally conclusive against this theory, is that it separates chap. xiv from the 
first thirteen verses of chap. xv. The arguments on this subject need not be 
repeated, but it may be pointed out that they are as conclusive against Renan’s 
hypothesis as against that of Baur. 

3. Renan’s theory has not received acceptance, but there is one portion of it 
which has been more generally held than any other with regard to these final 
chapters; that namely which considers that the list of names in chap. xvi 
belongs to a letter addressed to Ephesus and not to one addressed to Rome. This 
view, first put forward by Schulz (1829), has been adopted by Ewald, Mangold, 
Laurent, Hitzig, Reuss, Ritschl, Lucht, Holsten, Lipsius, Krenkel, Kneucker, 
Weiss, Weizsacker, Farrar. It has two forms; some hold ver. 1, 2 to belong 
to the Romans, others consider them also part of the Ephesian letter. Nor is 
it quite certain where the Ephesian fragment ends. Some consider that it 
includes vy. 17-21, others make it stop at ver. 16. 

The arguments in favour of this view are as follows: 1. It is pointed out 
that it is hardly likely that St. Paul should have been acquainted with such 
a large number of persons in a church like that of Rome which he had never 
visited, and that this feeling is corroborated by the number of personal details 
that he adds; references to companions in captivity, to relations, to fellow- 
labourers. All these allusions are easily explicable on the theory that the 
Epistle is addressed to the Ephesian Church, but not if 1t be addressed to the 
Roman. 32. This opinion is corroborated, it is said, by an examination of the 
list itself. Aquila and Priscilla and the church that is in their house are men- 
tioned shortly before this date as being at Ephesus, and shortly afterwards they 
are again mentioned as being in the same city (1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Tim. iv. 19). 
The very next name Epaenetus is clearly described as a native of the province 
of Asia. Of the others many are Jewish, many Greek, and it is more likely 
that they should be natives of Ephesus than natives of Rome. 3. That the 
warming against false teachers is quite inconsistent with the whole tenor of 
the letter, which elsewhere never refers to false teachers as being at work in 
Rome. 

In examining this hypothesis we must notice at once that it does not in 
any way help us to solve the textual difficulties, and receives no assistance 
from them. The problems of the concluding doxology and of the omission of 
the last two chapters remain as they were. It is only if we insert a bene- 
diction both at ver. 20 and at ver. 24 that we get any assistance. In that case 
we might explain the duplicate benediction by supposing that the first was 
the conclusion of the Ephesian letter, the second the conclusion of the Roman. 
As we have seen, the textual phenomena do not support this view. The theory 
therefore must be examined on its own merits, and the burden of proof is 
thrown on the opponents of the Roman destination of the Epistle, for as has 
been shown the only critical basis we can start from, in discussing St. Panl’s 
Epistles, is that they have come down to us substantially in the form in 
which they were written unless very strong evidence is brought forward to the 
contrary. 

But this evidence cannot be called very strong. It is admitted by Weiss 
and Mangold, for instance, that the @ frioré arguments against St. Paul’s 
acquaintance with some twenty-four persons in the Roman community are of 
slight weight. Christianity was preached amongst just that portion of the 
population of the Empire which would be most nomadic in character. It is 
admitted again that it.would be natural that, in writing to a strange church, 
St. Paul should lay special stress on all those with whom he was acquainted or 


xciv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 


of whom he had heard, in order that he might thus commend himself to them. 
Again, when we come to examine the names, we find that those actually con- 
nected with Ephesus are only three, and of these persons two are known to 
have originally come from Rome, while the third alone can hardly be con- 
sidered sufficient support for this theory. When again we come to examine 
the waming against heretics, we find that after all it is perfectly consistent 
with the body of the Epistle. If we conceive it to be a warning against false 
teachers whom St. Paul fears may come but who have not yet done so, it 
exactly suits the situation, and helps to explain the motives he had in writing 
the Epistle. He definitely states that he is only warning them that they may 
be wise if occasion arise. 

The arguments against these verses are not strong. What is the value of 
the definite evidence in their favour? This is of two classes. (i) The 
archaeological evidence for connecting the names in the Epistle with Rome. 
(ii) The archaeological and literary evidence for connecting any of the persons 
mentioned here with the Roman Church. 

(i) In his commentary on the Philippians, starting from the text Phil. iv. 22 
dona(ovra buds... pariata of éx Tov Kaicapos oixias, Bp. Lightfoot proceeds 
to examine the list of names in Rom. xvi in the light of Roman inscriptions. 
We happen to have preserved to us almost completely the funereal inscriptions 
of certain columbaria in which were deposited the ashes of members of the 
imperial household. Some of these date a little earlier than the Epistle to the 
Romans, some of them are almost contemporary. Besides these we have 
a large number of inscriptions containing names of freedmen and others belong- 
ing to the imperial household. Now examples of almost every name in Rom. 
xvi. 3-16 may be found amongst these, and the publication of the sixth 
volume of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions has enabled us to add to the 
instances quoted. Practically every name may be illustrated in Rome, and 
almost every name in the Inscriptions of the household, although some of them 
are uncommon. 

Now what does this prove? It does not prove of course that these are 
the persons to whom the Epistle was written; nor does it give overwhelming 
evidence that the names are Roman. It shows that such a combination of 
names was possible in Rome: but it shows something more than this. Man- 
gold asks what is the value of this investigation as the same names are found 
outside Rome? The answer is that for the most part they are very rare. 
Lipsius makes various attempts to illustrate the names from Asiatic inscrip- 
tions, but not very successfully; nor does Mangold help by showing that the 
two common names Narcissus and Hermas may be paralleled elsewhere. We 
have attempted to institute some comparison, but it is not very easy and will 
not be until we have more satisfactory collections of Greek inscriptions. If 
we take the Greek Corfus we shall find that in the inscriptions of Ephesus 
only three names out of the twenty-four in this list occur; if we extend our 
survey to the province of Asia we shall find only twelve. Now what this 
comparison suggests is that such a combination of names—Greek, Jewish, and 
Latin—could as a matter of fact only be found in the mixed population which 
formed the lower and middle classes of Rome. This evidence is not con- 
clusive, but it shows that there is no @ frzor¢ improbability in the names being 
Roman, and that it would be difficult anywhere else to illustrate such an 
heterogeneous collection. 

To this we may add the further evidence afforded by the explanation given 
by Bishop Lightfoot and repeated in the notes, of the households of Narcissus 
and Aristobulus: evidence again only corroborative but yet of some weight. 

(ii) The more direct archaeological evidence is that for connecting the names 
of Prisca, Amplias, Nereus, and Apelles definitely with the early history of 
Roman Christianity. These points have been discussed sufficiently in the 
notes, and it is only necessary to say here that it would be an excess of 


§ 9.] INTEGRITY xcv 


scepticism to look upon such evidence as worthless, although it might not 
weigh much if there were strong evidence on the other side. > 

To sum upthen. There is no external evidence against this section, nor 
does the exclusion of it from the Roman letter help in any way to solve the 
problems presented by the text. The arguments against the Roman des- 
tination are purely a friorz. They can therefore have little value. On being 
examined they were found not to be valid; while evidence not conclusive but 
considerable has been brought forward in favour of the Roman destination. 
For these reasons we have used the sixteenth chapter without hesitation in 
writing an account of the Roman Church, and any success we have had in the 
drawing of the picture which we have been able to present must be allowed to 
weigh in the evidence. 

4. Reiche (in 1833) suggested that the doxology was not genuine, and his 
opinion has been largely followed, combined in some cases with theories as to 
the omission of other parts, in some cases not. It is well known that passages 
which did not originally form part of the text are inserted in different places in 
different texts ; for instance, the pericope adulterae is found in more than one 
place. It would still be difficult to find a reason for the insertion of the 
doxology in the particular place at the end of chap. xiv, but at the same time 
the theory that it is not genuine will account for its omission altogether in 
some MSS. and its insertion in different places in others. We ask then what 
further evidence there is for this omission, and are confronted with a large 
number of arguments which inform us that it is clearly unpauline because it 
harmonizes in style, in phraseology. and in subject-matter with non-pauline 
Epistles—that to the Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. This argument 
must tell in different ways to different critics. It will be very strong, if not 
conclusive, to those who consider that these Epistles are not Pauline. To 
those however who accept them as genuine these arguments will rather con- 
firm their belief in the Pauline authorship. 

5. But there is an alternative hypothesis which may demand more careful 
consideration from us, that although it comes from St. Paul it belongs to rather 
a later period in his life. It is this consideration amongst others which forms 
the basis of the theory put forward by Dr. Lightfoot. He considers that the 
original Epistle to the Romans written by St. Paul contained all our present 
Epistle except xvi. 25-27; that at a somewhat later period—the period per- 
haps of his Roman imprisonment, St. Paul turned this into a circular letter; 
he cut off the last two chapters which contained for the most part purely 
personal matter, he omitted the words év ‘Pup in i. 7 and 15; and then added 
the doxology at the end because he felt the need of some more fitting con- 
clusion. Then, at a later date, in order to make the original Epistle complete 
the doxology was added from the later recension to the earlier. 

Dr. Lightfoot points out that this hypothesis solves all the problems. It 
explains the existence of a shorter recension, it explains the presence of the 
doxology in both places, it explains the peculiar style of the doxology. We 
may admit this, but there is one point it does not explain; it does not explain 
how or why St. Paul made the division at the end of chap. xiv. There is 
nothing in the next thirteen verses which unfits them for general circulation. 
They are in fact more suitable for an encyclical letter than is chap. xiv. It is 
to us inconceivable that St. Paul should have himself mutilated his own argu- 
ment by cutting off the conclusion of it. This consideration therefore seems 
to us decisive against Dr. Lightfoot’s theory. 

6. Dr. Hort has subjected the arguments of Dr. Lightfoot to a very close 
examination. He begins by a careful study of the doxology and has shown 
clearly first of all that the parallels between it and passages in the four acknow- 
ledged Epistles are much commoner and nearer than was thought to be the case; 
and secondly that it exactly reproduces and sums up the whole argument of 
the Epistle. On his investigation we have based our commentary, and we 


_xevi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ‘[§ 2. 


must refer to that and to Dr. Hort’s own essay for the reasons which make us 
accept the doxology as not only a genuine work of St. Paul, but also as an 
integral portion of the Epistle. That at the end he should feel compelled 
once more to sum up the great ideas of which the Epistle is full and put them 
clearly and strongly before his readers is quite in accordance with the whole 
mind of the Apostle. He does so in fact at the conclusion of the Galatian 
letter, although not in the form of a doxology. 

Dr. Hort then proceeds to criticize and explain away the textual phenomena. 
We have quoted his emendation of the passage in Origen and pointed out that 
it is to us most unconvincing. No single argument in favour of the existence 
of the shorter recension may be strong, but the combination of reasons is 
in our opinion too weighty to be explained away. 

Dr. Hort’s own conclusions are: (1) He suggests that as the last two 
chapters were considered unsuitable for public reading, they might be omitted in 
systems of lectionaries while the doxology—which was felt to be edifying—was 
appended to chap. xiv, that it might be read. (2) Some such theory as this 
might explain the capitulations. ‘The analogy of the common Greek capitu- 
lations shows how easily the personal or local and as it were temporary portions 
of an epistle might be excluded from a schedule of chapters or paragraphs.’ 
(3) The omission of the allusions to Rome is due to a simple transcriptional 
accident. (4) ‘ When all is said, two facts have to be explained, the insertion 
of the Doxology after xiv and its omission.’ This latter is due to Marcion, 
which must be explained to mean an omission agreeing with the reading in 
Marcion’s copy. ‘On the whole it is morally certain that the omission is 
his only as having been transmitted by him, in other words that it is a genuine 
ancient reading.’ Dr. Hort finally concludes that though a genuine reading it 
is incorrect and perhaps arises through some accident such as the tearing off 
of the end ofa papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book. 

While admitting the force of some of Hort’s criticisms on Lightfoot, and 
especially his defence of the genuineness of the doxology, we must express 
our belief that his manner of dealing with the evidence is somewhat arbitrary, 
and that his theory does not satisfactorily explain all the facts. 

7. We ourselves incline to an opinion suggested first we believe by 
Dr. Gifford. 

As will have already become apparent, no solution among those offered has 
attempted to explain what is really the most difficult part of the problem, 
the place at which the division was made. We know that the doxology 
was in many copies inserted at the end of chap. xiv; we have strong grounds 
for believing that in some editions chaps. xv and xvi were omitted; why is it 
at this place, certainly not a suitable one, that the break occurs? As we have 
seen, a careful examination of the text shows that the first thirteen verses of 
chap. xv are linked closely with chap. xiv—so closely that it is impossible to 
believe that they are not genuine, or that the Apostle himself could have cut 
them off from the context in publishing a shorter edition of his Epistle in- 
tended for a wide circulation. Nor again is it probable that any one arranging 
the Epistle for church services would have made the division at this place. 
The difficulty of the question is of course obscured for us by the division 
into chapters. To us if we wished to cut off the more personal part of the 
Epistle, a rough and ready method might suggest itself in the excision of the 
last two chapters, but we are dealing with a time before the present or 
probably any division into chapters existed. 

Now if there were no solution possible, we might possibly ascribe this 
division to accident; but as a matte: of fact internal evidence and externa! 
testimony alike point to the same cause. We have seen that there is con- 
siderable testimony for the fact that Marcion excised the last two chapters, and 
if we examine the beginning of chap. xv we shall find that as far as regards 
the first thirteen verses hardly any other course was possible for him, if he held 


§ 9.] | INTEGRITY xcvii 


the opinions which are ascribed to him. To begin with, five of these verses 
contain quotations from the O. T.; but further ver. 8 contains an expression 
Aeyw yap Xpiordv Siakovoy -yeyerjoGa weptrouAs imep aGdAnBetas @cov, which he 
Most certainly could not have used. Still more is this the case with regard to 
ver. 4, which directly contradicts the whole of his special teaching. The 
words at the end of chap. xiv might seem to make a more suitable ending 
than either of the next two verses, and at this place the division was drawn. 
The remainder of these two chapters could be omitted simply because they 
were useless for the definite dogmatic purpose Marcion had in view, and the 
Doxology which he could not quite like would go with them. 

If we once assume this excision by Marcion it may perhaps explain the 
phenomena. Dr. Hort has pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot’s theory of 
a shorter recension with the doxology that all the direct evidence for omitting 
the last two chapters is also in favour of omitting the Doxology. ‘For the 
omission of xv, xvi, the one direct testimony, if such it be, is that of Marcion: 
and yet the one incontrovertible fact about him is that he omitted the Doxology. 
If G is to be added on the strength of the blank space after xiv, yet again it 
leaves out the Doxology.’ We may add also the capitulations of Codex 
Fuldensis which again, as Dr. Hort points out, have no trace of the Doxology. 
Our evidence therefore points to the existence of a recension simply leaving 
out the last two chapters. 

Now it is becoming more generally admitted that Marcion’s AZostolicon had 
some—if not great—influence on variations in the text of the N.T. His 
edition had considerable circulation, especially at Rome, and therefore 
presumably in the West, and it is from the West that our evidence mostly 
comes. When in adapting the text for the purposes of church use it was 
thought advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently 
edifying, it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current 
edition the break had already been made. The subsequent steps would then 
be similar to those suggested by Dr. Hort. It was natural to add the 
‘Doxology in order to give a more suitable conclusion, or to preserve it for 
public reading at this place, and subsequently it dropped out at the later 
place. That is the order suggested by the manuscript evidence. All our best 
authorities place it at the end; AP Arm.—representing a later but still 
respectable text—have it in both places; later authorities for the most part 
place it only at xiv. 23... 

It remains to account for the omission of any reference to Rome in the first 
chapter of G. This may of course be a mere idiosyncracy of that MS., arising 
either from carelessness of transcription (a cause which we can hardly accept) or 
from a desire to make the Epistle more general in its character. But it does not 
seem to us at all improbable that this omission may also be due to Marcion. 
His edition was made with a strongly dogmatic purpose. Local and personal 
allusions would have little interest to him. The words év “‘Pwyn could easily be 
omitted without injuring the context. The opinion is perhaps corroborated 
by the character of the MS. in which the omission occurs. Allusion has been 
made (p. lxix) to two dissertations by Dr. Corssen on the allied MSS. DFG. 
In the second of these, he suggests that the archetype from which these MSS. 
are derived (Z) ended at xv. 13. Even if his argument were correct, it would 
not take away from the force of the other facts which have been mentioned. 
We should still have to explain how it was that the Doxology was inserted 
at the end of chap. xiv, and the previous discussion would stand as it is: only 
-a new fact would have to be accounted for. When, however, we come to 
examine Dr. Corssen’s arguments they hardly seem to support his con- 
tention. It may be admitted indeed, that the capitulations of the Codex 
Amiatinus might have been made for a copy which ended at xv. 13, but they 
present no solid argument for the existence of such a copy. Dr. Corssen 
points out that in the section xv. 14—xvi. 23, there are a considerable number 


g 


xceviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Se. 


of variations in the text, and suggests that that implies a different source for 
the text of that portion of the epistle. The number of variations in the 
sein i adulterae are, it is well known, considerable; and in the same way 

e would argue that this portion which has all these variations must come from 
a separate source. But the facts do not support his contention. It is true 
that in forty-three verses he is able to enumerate twenty-four variations ;. but if 
we examine the twenty-three verses of chap. xiv we shall find fourteen 
variations, a still larger proportion. Moreover, in xiv. 13 there are as numerous 
and as important variations as in any of the following verses. Dr. Corssen’s 
arguments do not bear out his conclusion. Asa matter of fact, as Dr. Hort 
pointed out against Dr. Lightfoot, the text of DF G presents exactly the same 
phenomena throughout the Epistle, and that suggests, although it does not 
perhaps prove, that the archetype contained the last two chapters. The scribe 
however was probably acquainted with a copy which omitted them. This 
archetype is alone or almost alone amongst our sources for the text in 
omitting the Doxology. It also omits as we have seen év ‘Pwpp in both places. 
We would hazard the suggestion that all these variations were due directly or 
indirectly to the same cause, the text of Marcion. : 

In our opinion then the text as we have it represents substantially the Epistle 
that St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and it remains only to explain briefly the 
somewhat complicated ending. At xv. 13 the didactic portion of it is con- 
cluded, and the remainder of the chapter is devoted to the Apostle’s personal 
relations with the Roman Church, and a sketch of his plans. This paragraph 
ends with a short prayer called forth by the mingled hopes and fears which these 
plans for the future suggest. Then comes the commendation of Phoebe, the 
bearer of the letter (xvi. 1, 2); then salutations (3-16). The Apostle might 
now close the Epistle, but his sense of the danger to which the Roman Church 
may be exposed, if it is visited by false teachers, such as he is acquainted with 
in the East, leads him to give a final and direct warning against them. We 
find a not dissimilar phenomenon in the Epistle to the Philippians. There in 
iii. 1 he appears to be concluding, but before he concludes he breaks out into 
a strong, even indignant warning against false teachers (iii. 2-21), and even 
after that dwells long and feelingly over his salutations. The same difficulty 
of ending need not therefore surprise us when we meet it in the Romans. 
Then comes (xvi. 20) the concluding benediction. After this a postscript with 
salutations from the companions of St. Paul. Then finally the Apostle, wish- 
ing perhaps, as Dr. Hort suggests, to raise the Epistle once more to the serene 
tone which has characterized it throughout, adds the concluding Doxology, 
summing up the whole argument of the Epistle. There is surely nothing 
unreasonable in supposing that there would be an absence of complete same- 
ness in the construction of the different letters. It is not likely that all would 
exactly correspond to the same model. The form in each case would be 
altered and changed in accordance with the feelings of the Apostle, and there 
is abundant proof throughout the Epistle that the Apostle felt earnestly the 
need of preserving the Roman Church from the evils of disunion and false 
teaching. 


§ 10. COMMENTARIES. 


A very complete and careful bibliography of the Epistle to the 
Romans was added by the editor, Dr. W. P. Dickson, to the 
English translation of Meyer’s Commentary. This need not be 
repeated here. But a few leading works may be mentioned, 
especially such as have been most largely used in the preparation 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES xcix 


of this edition. One or two which have not been used are added 
as links in the historical chain. Some conception may be formed 
of the general characteristics of the older commentators from the 
sketch which is given of their treatment of particular subjects; e.g. 
of the doctrine of dixaiwors at p. 147 ff., and of the interpretation of 
ch. ix. 6-29 on p. 269 ff. The arrangement is, roughly speaking, 
chronological, but modern writers are grouped rather according to 
their real affinities than according to dates of publication which 
would be sometimes misleading. 


1. Greek Writers. 


Oricen (Orig.); ob. 253: Comment. in. Epist. S. Pault ad 
Romanos in Origents Opera ed. C. H. E. Lommatzsch, vols. vi, vii: 
Berolini, 1836, 1837. The standard edition, on which that of 
Lommatzsch is based, is that begun by Charles Delarue, Bene- 
dictine of the congregation of St. Maur in 1733, and completed after 
his death by his nephew Charles Vincent Delarue in 1759. The 
Commentary on Romans comes in Tom. iv, which appeared in 
the latter year. A new edition—for which the beginnings have 
been made, in Germany by Dr. P. Koetschau, and in England by 
Prof. Armitage Robinson and others—is however much needed. 

The Commentary on our Epistle belongs to the latter part of 
Origen’s life when he was settledat Caesarea. A few fragments of 
the original Greek have come down to us in the Phzlocalia (ed. 
Robinson, Cambridge, 1893), and in Cramer’s Casena, Tom. iv. 
(Oxon. 1844); but for the greater part we are dependent upon the 
condensed translation of Rufinus (hence ‘ Orig.-lat.’). There is no 
doubt that Rufinus treated the work before him with great freedom. 
Its text in particular is frequently adapted to that of the Old-Latin 
copy of the Epistles which he was in the habit of using; so that 
‘Orig.-lat.’ more often represents Rufinus than Origen. An ad- 
mirable account of the Commentary, so far as can be ascertained, 
in both its forms is given in Dr. Westcott’s article ORIGENES in 
Dict. Chr. Biog. iv. 115-118. 

This work of Origen’s is unique among commentaries. The 
reader is astonished not only at the command of Scripture but at 
the range and subtlety of thought which it displays. The questions 
raised are often remarkably modern. If he had been as successful 
in answering as he is in propounding them Origen would have left 
little for those who followed him. As it is he is hampered by 
defects of method and especially by the fatal facility of allegory; 
the discursiveness and prolixity of treatment are also deterrent to 
the average reader. 

Curysostom (Chrys.); ob. 407: Homuzl. in Eptst. ad Romanos, 
ed. Field: Oxon. 1849; a complete criticaledition. A translation 


G2 — 


c EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. 


(not of this but of Savile’s text which is superior to Montfaucon’s), 
by the Rev. J. B. Morris, was given in the Library of the Fathers, 
vol. vii: Oxford, 1841. The Homilies were delivered at Antioch 
probably between 387-397 a.D. They show the preacher at his 
best and are full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human 
insight into the personality of the Apostle; they are also the work 
of an accomplished scholar and orator, but do not always sound the 
depths of the great problems with which the Apostle is wrestling. 
They have at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene 
exegesis. 

Tueovoret (Theodrt., Thdrt.) played a well-known moderating 
part in the controversies of the fifth century. He died in 458 a.p. 
As a commentator he is a pediseguus—but one of the best of the 
many pedisegui—of St.Chrysostom. His Commentary on the Ep. 
to the Romans is contained in his Works, ed. Sirmond: Paris, 
1642, Tom. iii. 1-119; also ed. Schulze and Noesselt, Halle, 
1769-1774. 

Joannes Damascenus (Jo.-Damasc.); died before 754 a.p. His 
commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom; it is 
printed among his works (ed. Lequien: Paris, 1712, tom. ii. 
pp. 1-60). The so-called Sacra Parallela published under his 
name are now known to be some two centuries earlier and 
probably in great part the work of Leontius of Byzantium (see the 
brilliant researches of Dr. F. Loofs: Studien iiber die dem Johannes 
von Damascus zugeschriebenen Parallelen, Halle, 1892). 

OxcumENIus (Oecum.); bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the 
tenth century. The Commentary on Romans occupies pp. 195- 
413 of his Works (ed. Joan. Hentenius: Paris, 1631). It is prac- 
tically a Catena with some contributions by Oecumenius himself; 
it includes copious extracts from Photius (Phot.), the eminent 
patriarch of Constantinople (¢. 820-c. 891) ; these are occasionally 
noted. 

TueEopuyLact (Theoph.); archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael 
VII Ducas (1071-1078), and still living in 1118. His Commentary 
is one of the best specimens of its kind (Opp. ed. Venet., 1754- 
1763, tom. il. 1-118). 

Eutuymius ZicaBenus (Euthym.-Zig.) ; living after 1118; monk 
in a monastery near Constantinople and in high favour with the 
emperor Alexius Comnenus. His Commentaries on St. Paul’s 
Epistles were not published until 1887 (ed. Calogeras: Athens) ; 
and as for that reason they have not been utilized in previous 
editions we have drawn upon them rather largely. They deserve 
citation by their terseness, point, and general precision of thought, 
but like all the writers of this date they follow closely in the foote 
steps of Chrysostom. 


§ 10.) COMMENTARIES ci 


2. Lattin Writers. 


AmprostasTER (Ambrstr.). The Epistle to the Romans heads 
a series of Commentaries on thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, which in 
some (though not the oldest) MSS. bear the name of St. Ambrose, 
and from that circumstance came to be included in the printed 
editions of his works. The Benedictines, Du Frische and Le 
Nourry in 1690, argued against their genuineness, which has been 
defended with more courage than success by the latest editor, 
P. A. Ballerini (S. Ambrost# Opera, tom. iii, p. 350 ff. ; Mediolani, 
1877). The real authorship of this work is one of the still open 
problems of literary criticism. The date and place of composition 
are fairly fixed. It was probably written at Rome, and (unless 
the text is corrupt) during the Episcopate of Damasus about the 
year 380 a.p. The author was for some time supposed to be 
a certain Hilary the Deacon, as a passage which appears in the 
commentary is referred by St. Augustine to sanctus Hilarius 
(Contra duas Epp. Pelag. iv. 7). The commentary cannot really 
proceed from the great Hilary (of Poitiers), but however the fact is 
to be explained it is probably he who is meant. More recently an 
elaborate attempt has been made by the Old-Catholic scholar, 
Dr. Langen, to vindicate the work for Faustinus, a Roman pres- 
byter of the required date. [Dr. Langen first propounded his 
views in an address delivered at Bonn in 1880, but has since given 
the substance of them in his Geschichte d. rim. Kirche, pp. 599- 
610.] A case of some strength seemed to be made out, but it 
was replied to with arguments which appear to preponderate by 
Marold in Hilgenfeld’s Zetschrift for 1883, pp. 415-470. Unfor- 
tunately the result is purely negative, and the commentary is stili 
without an owner. It has come out in the course of discussion 
that it presents a considerable resemblance, though not so much 
as to imply identity of authorship, with the Quaestiones ex ulroque 
Testamento, printed among the works of St. Augustine. The com- 
mentator was a man of intelligence who gives the best account we 
have from antiquity of the origin of the Roman Church (see above, 
p- xxv), but it has been used in this edition more for its interesting 
text than for the permanent value of its exegesis. 

Pertaetus (Pelag.). In the Appendix to the works of St. Jerome 
(ed. Migne xi. [P. Z. xxx.], col. 659 ff.) there is a series of Com- 
mentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles which is now known to proceed 
really from the author of Pelagianism. The Commentary was 
probably written before 410. It consists of brief but well written 
scholia rather dexterously turned so as not to clash with his 
peculiar views. But it has not come down to us as Pelagius left it. 
“essiadorius, and perhaps others, made excisions in the interests 
17h -~*) odoxy. 


cii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. 


Hucu or Sr. Victor (Hugo a S. Victore, Hugh of Paris) ; 
¢. 1097-1141. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the 
twelfth century are published Allegcriae in Novum Testamentum, 
Lib. VI. Allegoriae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Migne, 
P. L. clxxv, col. 879), and Quaestiones et Dectsiones in Epistolas 
D. Pauli. 1. In Epistolam ad Romanos (Migne, clxxv, col. 431). 
The authenticity of both these is disputed. St. Hugh was a typical 
representative of the mystical as opposed to the rationalizing 
tendency of the Middle Ages. 

PETER ABELARD, 1079-1142. Petri Abaclardt commentariorum 
super S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri quingue (Migne, P. L. 
clxxviii. col. 783). The commentary is described as being ‘literal, 
theological, and moral. The author follows the text exactly, 
explains each phrase, often each part of a phrase separately, and 
attempts (not always very successfully) to show the connexion of 
thought. Occasionally he discusses theological or moral questions, 
often with great originality, often showing indications of the opinions 
for which he was condemned’ (Migne, of. cé#. col. 30). So far as 
we have consulted it, we have found it based partly on Origen partly 
on Augustine, and rather weak and indecisive in its character. 

Tuomas Aquinas, ¢. 1225-1274, called Doctor Angelicus. His 
Exposttio in Epistolas omnes Divi Pauli Apostoli (Opp. Tom. xvi. 
Venetiis, 1593) formed part of the preparation which he made for 
his great work the Summa Theologiae—a preparation which consisted 
in the careful study of the sentences of Peter Lombard, the Scriptures 
with the comments of the Fathers, and the works of Aristotle. His 
commentary works out in great detail the method of exegesis started 
by St. Augustine. No modern reader who turns to it can fail to 
be struck by the immense intellectual power displayed, and by the 
precision and completeness of the logical analysis. Its value is 
chiefly as a complete and methodical exposition from a definite 
point of view. That in attempting to fit every argument of 
St. Paul into the form of a scholastic syllogism, and in making 
every thought harmonize with the Augustinian doctrine of grace, 
there should be a tendency to make St, Paul’s words fit a precon- 
ceived system is not unnatural. 


3. Reformation and Post-Reformation Periods. 


Cotet, John (c. 1467-1519); Dean of St. Paul’s. Colet, the 
friend of Erasmus, delivered a series of lectures on the Epistle to 
the Romans about the year 1497 in the University of Oxford. 
These were published in 1873 with a translation by J. H. Lupton, 
M.A., Sur-Master of St. Paul’s School. They are full of interest 
as an historical memorial of the earlier English Reformation. 

Erasmus, Desiderius, 1466-1536. Erasmus’ Greek Testament 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES ciii 


with a new translation and annotations was published in 1516; 
his Paraphrasis Novt Testamenti, a popular work, in 1522. He\ 
/was greater always in what he conceived and planned than in the 
|manner in which he accomplished it. He published the first 
Yedition of the Greek New Testament, and the first commentary on 
it which made use of the learning of the Renaissance, and edited 
for the first time many of the early fathers. But in all that he did 
there are great defects of execution, defects even for his own time. 
(He was more successful in raising questions than in solving them; 
“and his commentaries suffer as much from timidity as did those of 
Luther from excessive boldness. His aim was to reform the Church 
by publishing and interpreting the records of early Christianity—an 
aim which harmonized ill with the times in which he lived. His 
work was rather to prepare the way for future developments. 

Luruer, Martin, 1483-1546. Luther’s contribution to the 
literature of the Romans was confined to a short Preface, published 
in 1523. But as marking an epoch in the study of St. Paul’s 
writings, the most important place is occupied by his Commentary 
on the Galatians. This was published in a shorter form, Jx epzst. 
P.ad Galatas Mart. Lutheri comment. in 1519; in a longer form, 
In epist. P. ad Gal. commentarius ex praelectionibus Mart. Lutheri 
collectus, 1535. Exegesis was not Luther’s strong point, and his 
commentaries bristle with faults. They are defective, and prolix ; 
full of bitter controversy and one-sided. The value of his contribu- 
tion to the study of St. Paul’s writings was of a different character. 
By grasping, if in a one-sided way, some of St. Paul’s leading 
ideas, and by insisting upon them with unwearied boldness and 
persistence, he produced conditions of religious life which made 
the comprehension of part of the Apostle’s teaching possible. His 
exegetical notes could seldom be quoted, but he paved the way for 
a correct exegesis. 

Metancutuon, Philip (1497-1560), was the most scholarly of 
the Reformers. His Adnotationes in ep. P. ad Rom. with a preface 
by Luther was published in 1522, his Commentarit in Ep. ad Rom. 
in 1540. 

Cavin, John (1509-1564). His Commentartt in omnes epistolas 
Pauli Apost. was first published at Strassburgin 1539. Calvin was 
by far the greatest of the commentators of the Reformation. He 
is clear, lucid, honest, and straightforward. 


As the question is an interesting one, how far Calvin brought his peculiar 
views ready-made to the study of the Epistle and how far he derived them 
from it by an uncompromising exegesis, we are glad to place before the 
reader a statement by one whe is familiar with Calvin's writings (Dr. A. M. 
Fairbairn, Principal of Mansfield College). ‘The first edition of the 
Institutes was published in 1536. It has hardly any detailed exposition of 
the higher Calvinistic doctrine, but is made up of six parts: Expositions 
(i) of the Decalogue; (ii) of the Apostolic Creed; (iii) of the Lord’s Prayer; 


civ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ lo. 


(iv) of the Sacraments; (v) of the Roman or false doctrine of Sacraments; 
and (vi) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. There is just a single para- 
graph on Election. In 1539 he published two things, the Commentary on 
Romans and the 2nd edition of the /mstitutes. And the latter are greatly 
expanded with all his distinctive doctrines fully developed. Two things are, 

I think, certain: this development was due to his study (1) of Augustine, 

especially the Anti-Pelagian writings, and (2) of St. Paul. But it was St. 

Paul read through Augustine. The exegetical stamp is peculiarly distinct 

in the doctrinal parts of the J#s¢i/ufes; and so I should say that his ideas 

were not so much philosophical as theological and exegetical in their basis. 

I ought to add however as indicating his philosophical bent that his earliest 

studies—before he became a divine—were on Seneca, De Clementia.’ 

Beza, Theodore (1519-1605). His edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment with translation and annotations was first published by 
H. Stephanus in 1565, his Adnofatones majores in N.T. at Paris 
in 1594. 

Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), 1560-1609, Professor at Leyden, 
1603. Asa typical example of the opposite school of interpretation 
to that of Calvin may be taken Arminius. His works were com- 
paratively few, and he produced few commentaries. Two tracts of 
his however were devoted to explaining Romans vii and ix. He 
admirably illustrates the statement of Hallam that ‘every one who 
had to defend a cause, found no course so ready as to explain the 
Scriptures consistently with his own tenets.’ 

The two principal Roman Catholic commentators of the seven- 
teenth century were Estius and Cornelius a Lapide. 

Cornetius a Lapipg (van Stein), ob. 1637, a Jesuit, published 
his Commentaria in omnes d. Pauli epistolas at Antwerp in 1614. 

Estius (W. van Est), ob. 1613, was Provost and Chancellor of 
Douay. His Ju omnes Pauli et aliorum apostolor. epistolas com- — 
meniar. was published after his death at Douay in 1614-1616. 

Grotius (Huig van Groot), 1583-1645. His Amnotationes 
in NV. T. were published at Paris in 1644. This distinguished 
publicist and statesman had been in his,younger days a pupil of 
J. J. Scaliger at Leyden, and his Commentary on the Bible was 
the first attempt to apply to its elucidation the more exact philo- 
logical methods which he had learnt from his master. He had 
hardly the philological ability for the task he had undertaken, and 
although of great personal piety was too much destitute of dogmatic 
interest. * 

The work of the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and the 
first half of the seventeenth century on the Old and New Testament 
was summed up in Crefcz Sacri, first published in 1660. It 
contains extracts from the leading scholars from Valla and Erasmus 
to Grotius, and represents the point which philological study in the 
N. T. had up to that time attained. 

Two English commentators belonging to the seventeenth century 
deserve notice. 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES cv 


Hammonp, Henry (1605-1660), Fellow of Magdalen Coliege, 
Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. Hammond was well known 
as a royalist. He assisted in the production of Walton’s Polyg/o/t. 
His Paraphrase and Annotations of the New Testament appeared in 
1653, a few years before his death, at a time when the disturbances 
of the Civil War compelled him to live in retirement. He has 
been styled the father of English commentators, and certainly no 
considerable exegetical work before his time had appeared in this 
country. But he has a further title to fame. His commentary 
undoubtedly deserves the title of ‘ historical.’ In his interpretation 
he has detached himself from the dogmatic struggles of the seven- 
teenth century, and throughout he attempts to expound the Apostle 
in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times when he 
lived. 

Locxg, John (1662-1704), the well-known philosopher, devoted 
his last years to the study of St. Paul’s Epistles, and in 1705-1707 
were published A Paraphrase and Notes to the Epistle of St. Paul 
to the Galatians, the first and second Eptstles to the Corinthians, and 
the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Appended is an “ssay 
Jor the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles by consulting St. Paul 
himself. A study of this essay is of great interest. It is full of 
acute ideas and thoughts, and would amply vindicate the claim of 
the author to be classed as an ‘historical’ interpreter. The com- 
mentaries were translated into German, and must have had some 
influence on the future development of Biblical Exegesis. 

Bence, J. A. (Beng.), 1687-1752; a Lutheran prelate in 
Wiirtemberg. His Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742) stands out 
among the exegetical literature not only of the eighteenth century 
but of all centuries for its masterly terseness and precision and 
for its combination of spiritual insight with the best scholarship of 
his time. 

WertsteEIn (or Wettstein), J. J., 1693-1754; after being deposed 
from office at Basel on a charge of heterodoxy he became Pro- 
fessor in the Remonstrants’ College at Amsterdam. His Greek 
Testament appeared 1751,1752. Wetstein was one of those inde- 
fatigable students whose first-hand researches form the base of 
other men’s labours. In the history of textual criticism he deserves 
to be named by the side of John Mill and Richard Bentley; and 
besides his collation of MSS. he collected a mass of illustrative 
matter on the N. T. from classical, patristic, and rabbinical sources 
which is still of great value. 


4. Modern Period. 


Tuotucx, F. A. G., 1799-1877; Professor at Halle. Tholuck 
was a man of large sympathies and strong religious character, and 


cvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. 


Loth personally and through his commentary (which came out first 
‘n 1824 and has been more than once translated) exercised a wide 
influence outside Germany ; this is specially marked in the American 
« xegetes. 

Fritzscue, C. F. A. (Fri.), 1801-1846, Professor at Giessen. 
Fritzsche on Romans (3 vols. 1836-1843), like Liicke on St. John 
and Bleek on Hebrews, is a vast quarry of materials to which all 
~ubsequent editors have been greatly indebted. Fritzsche was one 
of those philologists whose researches did most to fix the laws of 
N.T. Greek, but his exegesis is hard and rationalizing. He 
engaged in a controversy with Tholuck the asperity of which he 
regretted before his death. He was however no doubt the better 
scholar and stimulated Tholuck to self-improvement in this respect. 

Meyer, H. A. W. (Mey.), 1800-1873; Consistorialrath in the 
kingdom of Hanover. Meyer’s famous commentaries first began 
to appear in 1832, and were carried on with unresting energy in a 
succession of new and constantly enlarged editions until his death. 
There is an excellent English translation of the Commentary on 
Romans published by Messrs. T. and T. Clark under the editor- 
ship of Dr. W. P. Dickson in 1873, 1874. Meyer and De Wette 
n.ay be said to have been the founders of the modern style of 
commenting, at once scientific and popular: scientific, through its 
rigorous—at times too rigorous—application of grammatical and 
philological laws, and popular by reason of its terseness and power 
of presenting the sifted results of learning and research. Since 
Meyer’s death the Commentary on Romans has been edited with 
equal conscientiousness and thoroughness by Dr. Bernhard Weiss, 
Professor at Berlin (hence ‘ Mey.-W.’). Dr. Weiss has not all his 
predecessor’s vigour of style and is rather difficult to follow, but 
especially in textual criticism marks a real advance. 

De Wetter, W. M. L. (De W.), 1780-1849; Professor for a short 
time at Berlin, whence he was dismissed, afterwards at Basel. His 
Kuregefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament first 
appeared in 1836-1848. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom 
and rationalistically inclined, but his commentaries are models of 
brevity and precision. 

Stuart, Moses, 1780-1852; Professor at Andover, Mass. Comm. 
on Romans first published in 1832 (British edition with preface by 
Dr. Pye-Smith in 1833). At a time when Biblical exegesis was 
not being very actively prosecuted in Great Britain two works of 
solid merit were produced in America. One of these was by 
Moses Stuart, who did much to naturalize German methods, He 
expresses large obligations to Tholuck, but is independent as 
a commentator and modified considerably the Calvinism of his 
surroundings. 

Hopeg, Dr. C., 1797-1878; Professor at Princeton, New Jersey. 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES evii 


His Comm. on Romans first published in 1835, rewritten in, 1864, 
is a weighty and learned doctrinal exposition based on the principles 
of the Westminster Confession. Like Moses Stuart, Dr. Hodge 
also owed much of his philological equipment to Germany where 
he had studied. 

Atrorp, Dr. H. (Alf.), 1810-1871; Dean of Canterbury. His 
Greek Testament (1849-1861, and subsequently) was the first to 
import the results of German exegesis into many circles in England. 
Nonconformists (headed by the learned Dr. J. Pye-Smith) had been 
in advance of the Established Church in this respect. Dean Alford’s 
laborious work is characterized by vigour, good sense, and scholar- 
ship, sound as far as it goes; it is probably still the best complete 
Greek Testament by a single hand. 

WornpswortH, Dr. Christopher, 1809-1885; Bishop of Lincoln. 
Bishop Wordsworth’s Greek Testament (1856-1860, and subse- 
quently) is of an older type than Dean Alford’s, and chiefly valuable 
for its patristic learning. ‘The author was not only a distinguished 
prelate but a literary scholar of a high order (as may be seen by 
his Athens and Alftica, Conjectural Emendations of Ancient Authors, 
and many other publications) but he wrote at a time when the 
reading public was less exigent in matters of higher criticism and 
interpretation. 

Jowett, B., 1817-1893; widely known as Master of Balliol 
College and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. 
His edition of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians, 
and Romans first appeared in 1855; second edition 1859; recently 
re-edited by Prof. L. Campbell. Professor Jowett’s may be said to 
have been the first attempt in England at an entirely modern view 
of the Epistle. The essays contain much beautiful and suggestive 
writing, but the exegesis is loose and disappointing. 

Vaueuay, Dr. C. J. (Va.); Dean of Llandaff. Dr. Vaughan’s 
edition first came out in 1859, and was afterwards enlarged; the 
edition used for this commentary has been the 4th (1874). It is 
a close study of the Epistle by a finished scholar with little further 
help than the Concordance to the Septuagint and Greek Testament: 
its greatest value lies in the careful selection of illustrative passages 
from these sources. 

Kerry, W.; associated at one time with the textual critic 
Tregelles. His Voses on the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1873), 
are written irom a detached and peculiar standpoint; but they are 
the fruit of sound scholarship and of prolonged and devout study, 
and they deserve more attention than they have received. 

Beet, Dr. J. Agar; Tutor in the Wesleyan College, Richmond. 
Dr. Beet’s may be described as the leading Wesleyan commentary: 
it starts from a very caretul exposition of the text, but is intended 
throughout as a contribution to systematic theology. The first 


eviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ lo. 


edition appeared in 1877, the second in 1881, and there have been 
several others since. 

Gopet, Dr. F. (Go.), Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur 
l’Epitre aux Romains, Paris, &c., 1879, English translation in 
T. and T. Clark’s series, 1881. Godet and Oltramare are both 
Franco-Swiss theologians with a German training; and their com- 
mentaries are somewhat similar in character. They are extremely 
full, giving and discussing divergent interpretations under the names 
of their supporters. Both are learned and thoughtful works, 
strongest in exegesis proper and weakest in textual criticism. 

OLTRAMaRE, Hugues (Oltr.), 1813-1894; Professor at Geneva. 
Commentaire sur I Epitre aux Romains, published in 1881, 1882 
(a volume on chaps. i-v. 11 had appeared in 1843). Resembling 
Godet in many particulars, Oltramare seems to us to have the 
stronger grip and greater individuality in exegesis, though the 
original views of which he is fond do not always commend them- 
selves as right. 

Mourg, Rev. H. C. G. (Mou.); Principal of Ridley Hall, 
Cambridge. Mr. Moule’s edition (in the Cambridge Bible for 
Schools) appeared in 1879. It reminds us of Dr. Vaughan’s in 
its elegant scholarship and seeming independence of other com- 
mentaries, but it is fuller in exegesis. The point of view approaches 
as nearly as an English Churchman is likely to approach to Cal- 
vinism. Mr. Moule has also commented on the Epistle in Zhe 
Exposttor’s Bible. 

-  Grrrorp, Dr. E. H. (Gif.); sometime Archdeacon of London. 

The Epistle to the Romans in Zhe Speaker's Commentary (1881) 
was contributed by Dr. Gifford, but is also published separately. 
We believe that this is on the whole the best as it is the most 
judicious of all English commentaries on the Epistle. There are 
few difficulties of exegesis which it does not fully face, and the 
solution which it offers is certain to be at once scholarly and well 
considered: it takes account of previous work both ancient and 
modern, though the pages are not crowded with names and 
references. Our obligations to this commentary are probably 
higher than to any other. 

Lippon, Dr. H. P. (Lid.); Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's 
Epistle to the Romans, published posthumously in 1893, after being 
in an earlier form circulated privately among Dr. Liddon’s pupils 
during his tenure of the Ireland Chair (1870-1882). The Analysis 
was first printed in 1876, but after that date much enlarged. It is 
what its name implies, an analysis of the argument with very full 
notes, but not a complete edition. It is perhaps true that the 
analysis is somewhat excessively divided and subdivided; in 
exegesis it is largely based on Meyer, but it shows everywhere the 
hand of a most lucid writer and accomplished theologian, 


§ 10.] COMMENTARIES cix 


Barmsy, Dr. James; formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield’s 
Hall, Durham. Dr. Barmby contributed Romans to the Pulpit 
Commentary (London, 1890); a sound, independent and vigorous 
exposition. 

Liestus, Dr. R. A. (Lips.), 1830-1892; Professor at Jena. This 
most unwearied worker won and maintained his fame in other 
fields than exegesis. He had however written a popular com- 
mentary on Romans for the Prosestantendibel (English translation, 
published by Messrs. Williams & Norgate in 1883), and he edited 
the same Epistle along with Galatians and Philippians in the 
Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg i. B., 1891). 
This is a great improvement on the earlier work, and is perhaps 
in many respects the best, as it is the latest, of German commen- 
taries; especially on the side of historical criticism and Biblical 
theology it is unsurpassed. No other commentary is so different 
from those of our own countrymen, or would serve so well to 
supplement their deficiencies. 

Scnarrer, Dr. A.; Professor at Miinster. Dr. Schaefer's Er- 
kldrung d. Briefes an die Rimer (Miinster i. W., 1891) may be 
taken as a specimen of Roman Catholic commentaries. It is 
pleasantly and clearly written, with fair knowledge of exegetical 
literature, but seems to us often just to miss the point of the 
Apostle’s thought. Dr. Schanz, the ablest of Roman Catholic 
commentators, has not treated St. Paul’s Epistles. 

We are glad to have been able to refer, through the kindness of 
a friend, to a Russian commentary. 

THEOPHANES, Ob. 1893; was Professor and Inspector in the 
St. Petersburgh Ecclesiastical Academy and afterwards Bishop of 
Vladimir and Suzdal. He early gave up his see and retired to 
a life of learning and devotion. His commentary on the Romans 
was published in 1890. He is described as belonging to an 
old and to a certain extent antiquated school of exegesis. His 
commentary is based mainly on that of Chrysostom. Theophanes 
has both the strength and weakness of his master. Like him he is 
often historical in his treatment, like him he sometimes fails te 
grasp the more profound points in the Apostle’s teaching. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


——— 


Ecclesiastical Writers (see p. xcviii ff.). 


Amb. . ° Ambrose, 

Ambrstr. . Ambrosiaster. 

Ath. . ° Athanasius. 

Aug. .  - Augustine. 

Bak s+ Basil. 

Chrys. ° Chrysostom. 
Clem.-Alex. Clement of Alexandria. 
Clem.-Rom. Clement of Rome. 
Cypr.. « Cyprian. 

Cyr.-Alex. . Cyril of Alexandria. 
Cyr.-Jerus. « Cyril of Jerusalem. 
Epiph. Epiphanius. 

Eus. E Eusebius. 
Euthym.-Zig. Euthymius Zigabenus. 
Hippol. . Hippolytus. 

Ign. . ‘ Ignatius, 

Jer. (Hieron.) Jerome. 

ORS aa Josephus, 

Method. . Methodius, 

Novat. ° Novatian. 

Oecum. . Oecumenius. 

Orig. . ‘ Origen. 

Orig.-lat.. Latin Version of Origen 
Pelag. ° Pelagius. 

Phot. . e Photius. 

Bul ents Rufinus. 

Sedul.. ° Sedulius. 

Tert. . Tertullian. 
Theod.-Mops. Theodore of Mopsuessia. 
Theodrt. . Theodoret. 

Theoph, . Theophylact. 


Versions (see p. Ixvi f.). 
Aegyptt. . . 


Boh. . : 
Sah. ‘ 

Aeth . - : 

Arm. . 5 : 

Goth. . 5 5 

Latt. . 5 : 
Lat. Vet. 5 
Vulg. . ° 

Ste ire) 
Pesh. . . 
Harcl. . : 

Cov. . 

Genev. - 

Rhem. 

Tyn. . 

Wic. . = 

AV. . 

RV. . 


Editors (see p. cv ff.). 
T.R. : 


Tisch. . 
Treg. , 
WH. ° 

AIG: .. ° 
Beng. . : 
Del. . ° 

De W. sk ade 
Fri... ° * 
Gif, . . . 
Go. . ° ° 
Lft. e e e 
Lid. e ° s 
Lips. . ° . 
Mey. . ° 
Mey.-W. . ° 
Oltr. . . 
Ve. 


ABBREVIATIONS exi 


Egyptian, ‘ 
Bohairic. 

Sahidic. 

Ethiopic. 
Armenian, 

Gothic. 

Latin. 

Vetus Latina. 
Vulgate. 

Syriac. 

Peshitto. 

Harclean, 
Coverdale. 

Geneva. 

Rheims (or Douay). 
Tyndale. 

Wiclif. 

Authorized Version. 
Revised Version. 


Textus Receptus. 
Tischendorf. 
Tregelles. 
Westcott and Hort. 
Alford. 

Bengel. 


Delitzsch. 


De Wette. 
Ellicott. 
Fritzsche (C. F. A.) 
Gifford. 
Godet. 
Lightfoot. 
Liddon. 
Lipsius. 
Meyer. 
Meyer-Weisa, 
Oltramare. 
Vaughan. 


cXll ABBREVIATIONS 


CLI. G. e ° ° ° . Co T, (pus ds nscriphionum 


Graecarum, 
CIL. © © «© « «+ Corpus  ILnscriptionum 
Latinarum. 
Grm.-Thay. » «+  « Grimm-Thayer’s Lexi- 
con. 


Trench, Spay User . - Trench on Synonyms. 
Win’: iy thide ; : - Winer’s Grammar. 
Exp. . ° : - . . Lxposttor. 

JBExeg. «© +» «© « « Journal of the Society of 
Biblical Literature 
and Exegesis. 

ZwTh. ° ° ° ° . Leitschrift fiir wissen- 
schaftliche Theologie. 

add. . ° - e ° . addit, addunt, &c. 


al. i . - ° ° - alii, alibi. 

cat. (caten.) . en ea ee 

codd. . ° . . ° - codices. 

edd. . ° . e . - editores. 

edd. pr. ». « e« «  « editores priores (older 
editors). 

OMB) is - : . 2 + omittit, omittunt, &c. 

pauc. . . ° . . + pauci. 

pler. + . < . . -  plerique. 

plur. . . . . : - plures. 

praem. “ rs “ - praemittit, praemittunt, 
&e. 

rel. . . : - reliqui. 


2/3, 4/5; &c. = ° ° - twice out of three times, 
four out of five times, 
&c. 

In text-critical notes adverbs (52s, semel, &c.), statistics (?/,, */,) and 
cod. codd., ed. edd., &c., always qualify the word which precedes, not 
that which follows: ‘ Vulg. codd.’ = some MSS. of the Vulgate, 
Epiph. cod. or Epiph. ed.=a MS. or some printed edition of 
Epiphanius. 

N.B.—The text commented upon is that commonly known as the 
Revisers’ Greek Text (i.e. the Greek Text presupposed in the Revised 


Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. The few instances 
fm which the editors dissent from this text are noted as they ocour. 


THE 
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION. 


I.1,7. * Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Aposile, 
gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, itself also 
divinely called. 


*Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle called 
by divine summons as much as any member of the original 
Twelve, solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God’s 
message of salvation; "Paul, so authorized and commissioned, 
gives greeting to the whole body of Roman Christians (whether 
Jewish or Gentile), who as Christians are special objects of the 
Divine love, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner 
society of the Church, consecrated to God, like Israel of old, as 
His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of 
God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be 
yours! May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord 
Jesus Messiah, grant them to you! 


I. 2-6. J preach, in accordance with our Fewish Scrip- 
tures, Fesus the Son of David and Son of God, whose 
commission I bear. 


*The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no 
startling novelty, launched upon the world without preparation, 
but rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had 
inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Writ. *It 
relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold 
aspect ; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage 

* In this one instance we have ventured to break up the long and heavily- 
weighted sentence in the Greek, and to treat its two main divisions separately. 


But the second of these is not in the strict sense a parenthesis : the construction 
of the whole paragraph is continuous. 


2 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1. 1-7. 


to David, as the Messiah was to do, ‘and on the other hand, in 
virtue of the Holiness inherent in His spirit, visibly designated or 
declared to be Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection. He, 
I say, is the sum and substance of my message, Jesus, the Jew’s 
Messiah, and the Christian’s Lord. *And it was through Him that 
I, like the rest of the Apostles, received both the general tokens of 
God’s favour in that I was called to be a Christian and also the 
special gifts of an Apostle. *My duty as an Apostle is among 
all Gentile peoples, and therefore among you too at Rome, to win 
men over to the willing service of loyalty to Him; and the end 
to which all my labours are directed is the honour of His Holy 
Name. 


1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial city, which he 
had not yet visited, St. Paul delivers his credentials with some 
solemnity, and with a full sense of the magnitude of the issues in 
which they and he alike are concerned. He takes occasion at 
once to define (i) his own position, (ii) the position of his readers, 
(iii) the central truth in that common Christianity which unites 
them. 

The leading points in the section may be summarized thus: 
(i) I, Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but by the 
deliberate call and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God 
(vv. 1, 7). (ii) You, Roman Christians, are also special objects of 
the Divine care. You inherit under the New Dispensation the 
same position which Israel occupied under the Old (vw. 6, 7). 
(iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, though new 
in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name of Jesus 
Christ, is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which 
it fulfils and supersedes (vv. 2, 7; see note on KAnrois dyios). (iv) 
Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the 
Son of God (vv. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, 
may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7). 

This opening section of the Epistie affords a good opportunity 
to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of 
reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ 
and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the 
old. We have to remember (1) that the Epistle was written about 
the year 58 a.D., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (2) that 
in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to 
be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which 
of the terms used are old and which new, and how far old terms 
have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point 
at the end of the paragraph. 


1.1] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 3 


1. S0dXos “Inood Xprotod : SodA0s Gcov or Kupiov is an Old Testa- 
ment phrase, applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards 
(Am. iii. 7; Jer. vii. 25 and repeatedly; Dan. ix. 6; Ezra ix. 11); 
also with slight variations to Moses (6epdrwy Josh. i. 2), Joshua 
(Josh. xxiv. 29; Jud. ii. 8), David (title of Ps. xxxvi. [xxxv.]; Pss. 
Ixxviii. [Ixxvii.] 70; Ixxxix. Uae 4, 21; also mais xvpiov, title 
of Ps. xviii. [xvii.]), Isaiah (mais Is. xx. 3); but applied also to 
worshippers generally (Pss. xxxiv. [xxxiii.] 23; cxiii. [cxii] 1 
maides ; CXXXVi. [cxxxv.] 22 of Israel, &c.). 

This is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament ; 
it is found also in the greetings of Phil., Tit., Jas., Jude, 2 Pet., show- 
ing that as the Apostolic age progressed the assumption of the title 
became established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how 
quietly St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets and leaders of 
the Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes the name of His 
own Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah. 


"Incod Xpiorod. A small question of reading arises here, which is per- 
haps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. In the 
opening verses of most of St. Paul’s Epistles the MSS. vary between ‘Inaod 
Xpiorov and Xpiatov "Inoov. There is also evidently a certain method in the 
variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given 
it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other) :— 

1 Thess. i. 1 “Ingod Xpror@ unquestioned. 

a Thess. i. I “Ijcotd Xpior@ Edd.; Xpior@ *Incov DE F& G, Ambrstr. 

(st ed. Ballerini). 

Gal. i. 1 Incod Xpiorod unquestioned. 

1 Cor. i. I Xpiorod "Incood BDEFG 17 al. pauc., Vulg. codd., Chrys. 
Ambrstr. Aug. semel, Tisch., WH. marg. 

a Cor. i. 1 Xpictod ‘Incod NBM P 19 marg., Harcl., Euthal. cod. Theodrt. 
Tisch. WH. RV. 

Rom. i. I Xpiorod “Inood B, Vulg. codd., Orig. bis (contra Orig.-lat. 52s) 
Aug. semel Amb. Ambrstr. a/. Zat., Tisch. WH. marg. 

Phil. i, 1 Xpiorod Incod NBDE, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Eph. i. 1 Xpiorod “Ijcod BDEP 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Goth. Harel. 
Orig. (ex Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Col.i. 1 Xpiorod "Inood NABF GLP 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Euthal. 
cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. a/., Tisch. WH. RV. 

Philem. i. 1 Xpicrod Inco) NA D°F GK P (def. B), &c., Boh., Hieron. 
(ué vid.) Ambrstr. a/., Tisch. WH. RV. 

1 Tim. i. I Xpictod “Incod NDF GP (def. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., 
Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 

aTim. i. 1 Xpiorod "Incod NDEFGKP (def. B) 17 al, Vulg. codd. 
Boh. Sah. Harcl., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. a/., Tisch. WH. 
RV. 

Tit. i. 1 Inood Xpiorod ND°EFG &c., Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. 
Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.) a@/., Tisch. WH. 
(sed Xpiorod ['Inood] marg.) RV.; Xparov “Inood A minusc. tres, Vulg. 
codd. Boh. Harcl., Cassiod.; Xprotod tantum D®'*. 

It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chrono- 

logical order, those at the head of the list read indubitably Insov Xporov 
- (or Xpiotq@), while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit., 
which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read Xpiorow ‘Inaot, 


. 


4 _ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. L 


ane apout the group 1 and a Cor. Rom. there is a certain amount of 
oubt. 

Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Paul., it 
looks as if the evidence for xv win Cor. Rom. might be entirely Western; 
but that is not quite clear, and the reading may possibly be right. In any 
case it would seem that just about this time St. Paul fell into the habit of 
writing Xpiarés ’Ingovs. The interest of this would lie in the fact that in 
Xpiords ‘Inoovs the first word would seem to be rather more distinctly a 
proper name than in Incods Xpords. No doubt the latter phrase is rapidly 
passing into a proper name, but Xporés would seem to have a little of its 
sense as a title still clinging to it: the phrase would be in fact transitional 
between Xpiordés or 6 Xpiords of the Gospels and the later Xpsords “Inoois or 
Xpiorés simply as a proper name (see Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 189 f., 
and an article by the Rev. F, Herbert Stead in Zxfos. 1888, i. 386 ff.). The 
subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction. 


KAnTés Gméctohos. xKAqors is another idea which has its roots in 
the Old Testament. Eminent servants of God become so by an 
express Divine summons. The typical examples would be 
Abraham (Gen. xii. 1-3), Moses (Ex. iii. 10), the prophets (Isa. vi. 
8,9; Jer. i. 4, 5, &c.). The verb xadeiv occurs in a highly typical 
passage, Hos. xi. 1 e& Alyimrov perexddeoa ta téxva pov. For the 
particular form «Anrés we cannot come nearer than the ‘guests’ 
(kAnroi) of Adonijah (1 Kings i. 41, 49). By his use of the term 
St. Paul places himself on a level at once with the great Old 
Testament saints and with the Twelve who had been ‘called’ 
expressly by Christ (Mark i. 17; ii. 14 ]). The same combina- 
tion «Anrés dnoor. Occurs in 1 Cor. i. 1, but is not used elsewhere 
by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two Epistles 
St. Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own call (on the way 
to Damascus, cf. also Acts xxvi. 17) with that of the elder 
Apostles. 


On the relation of #Anrés to éxAextdés see Lft. on Col. iii. 12. There is 
a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospels 
«Anroi are all who are invited to enter Christ’s kingdom, whether or not they 
accept the invitation ; the éAexroi are a smaller group, selected to special 
honour (Matt. xxii. 14). In St. Paul both words are applied to the 
same persons; «AnTés implies that the call has been not only given but 
obeyed. 


Gméotodos. It is well known that this word is used in two 
senses ; a narrower sense in which it was applied by our Lord 
Himself to the Twelve (Luke vi. 13; Mark iii. 14 v.1.), and a wider 
in which it includes certainly Barnabas (Acts xiv. 4, 14) and 
probably James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19), Andronicus and 
Junias (Rom. xvi 7), and many others (cf. x Cor, xii. 28; Eph. 
iv. 113 Didaché xi, xii, &c.; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92 ff.; 
Harnack in Zexte u. Uniersuch. ii. 111 ff.). Strictly speaking 
St. Paul could only claim to be an Apostle in the wider accepta- 
tion. of the term ; he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that he is 
kAntos drdarodos, i.e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing 


EL] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 5 


such qualifications as are described in Acts i. 21, 22, but through 
a direct intervention of Christ. At the same time it should be 
remembered that St. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view 
to personal aggrandizement, but only with a view to commend his 
Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves. 

&pwpiopévos: in a double sense, by God (as in Gal. i. 15) and 
by man (Acts xiii. 2). The first sense is most prominent here ; or 
rather it includes the second, which marks the historic fulfilment of 
the Divine purpose. The free acceptance of the human commis- 
sion may enable us to understand how there is room for free will 
even in the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by 
God (see below on ch. xi). And yet the three terms, dodos, 
KAnrés, apwpiopevos, all serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural 
doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments 
in the hand of God, with no initiative or merit of their own. 


This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books: it is found also 
in Assump. Moys. i. 14 ttaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ab initio orbis 
terrarum pracparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamentz illius. 


eis edayyéAtov Geos. The particular function for which St. Paul 
is ‘set apart’ is to preach the Gospel of God. The Gospel is 
sometimes described as ‘ of God’ and sometimes ‘ of Christ’ (e. g. 
Marki. 1). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding 
in time of a plan conceived in eternity, ‘ of God’ is the more appro- 
priate. It is probably a mistake in these cases to restrict the force 
of the gen. to one particular aspect (‘the Gospel of which God 
is the author,’ or ‘of which Christ is the subject’): all aspects are 
included in which the Gospel is in any way related to God and 
Christ. 

evayyédtov. The fundamental passage for the use of this word 
appears to be Marki. 14, 15 (cf. Matt. iv. 23). We cannot doubt 
that our Lord Himself described by this term (or its Aramaic 
equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the Messianic 
Time. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from the LXX 
(where the word occurs in all only two [or three] times, and once for 
‘the reward of good tidings’; the more common form is «vayyeXia). 
It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the 
rather frequent use (twenty times) of edayyehifew, evayyedilerOa, 
especially in Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the 
news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity. 
A conspicuous passage is Isa. lxi. 1, which is quoted or taken as 
a text in Luke iv. 18. The group of words is well established in 
Synoptic usage (evayyéAvov, Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts 
two; «vayyedifecOa, Matthew one, Luke ten, Acts fifteen). It 
evidently took a strong hold on the imagination of St. Paul in 
connexion with his own call to missionary labours (evayyéAtov sixty 


6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 1-8. 


times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice; evay- 
yedifecOa twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times 
pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N. T. writers 
outside Evv. Synopt. Acts is striking. The use of evayyédsov for 
a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 317m.) ; 
the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. 1; Apoc. xiv. 6. 

2. mpoermyyettato. The words émayyedia, enayyéANecOar Occur 
several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the great 
‘promises’ made by God to His people. The first instance of 
this use is Ps. Sol. xii. 8 kat Govoe xvpiov KAnpovopnoaev emayyeXias 
kupiov: cf. vii. g Tod eAcjoa Tov oikov "Iaxd8 eis Hucpav ev H exnyyciAw 
aitois, and xvii. 6 ois ovx emnyyeido, pera Bias apcitovro: a group of 
passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expecta- 
tion in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of 
Christ. No wonder that the idea was eagerly seized upon by the 
primitive Church as it began to turn the pages of the O. T. and to 
find one feature after another of the history of its Founder and of 
its own history foretold there. 


We notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been 
the historical sequence, neither éwayyeAia nor émayyéAAcoGar (in the technical 
sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 49, where énay- 
cAia is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit; but we no sooner cross 
over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent. The words cover (i) the 
promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which 
is referred to the Father in Acts i. 4); so émayyeAia three times in the Acts, 
Gal. iii. 14, and Eph. i. 13; (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Chris- 
tianity; so érayyeAia four times in Acts (note esp. Acts xiii. 32, xxvi. 6), 
some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both émayyeAia and émayyéAAcoOat 
repeatedly in Heb., &c.; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet 
fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 20 dca: ydp énayyeAlat @cov (cf. vii. 1) ; 
1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim. i. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 4 % émayyeAla THs mapovolas abrod. 


év ypapats dytats: perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use 
of this phrase (Philo prefers fepat ypagal, iepai BiSror, 6 iepds Adyos : 
cf. Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 72); but the use is evidently well estab- 
lished, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes 
back to the prologue to Ecclus. In ypadais dyias the absence of 
the art. throws the stress on dyfas; the books are ‘holy’ as con- 
taining the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired 
men (d:a ray mpopyray avrod). 

3. yevonévov. This is contrasted with épicGévros, yevopevov denot- 
ing, as usually, ‘transition from one state or mode of subsistence 
to another’ (Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. i. 30); it is rightly paraphrased 
‘{Who] was born,’ and is practically equivalent to the Johannean 
€AOdvros eis TOY KOTpOV. 

éx oméppatos AaBi8. For proof that the belief in the descent of 
the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mark xii. 35 ff. 
was A€yovow of ypappareis Gre 6 Xpioros vids corse AaBid; (cf. Mark 


I. 3, 4.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 7 


xi. ro and x. 47 f.): also Ps. Sol. xvii. 23 ff. ide, xipe, xal dvdornoos 
aurots Tov Bactea avtav vidv Aavid eis Tov Katpoy ov aloes ov, 6 cds, TOU 
Baotdedcar emt Iopand maidd cov «.t.A.; 4 Ezra xii. 32 (in three of the 
extant versions, Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targums 
(passages in Weber, Al/syn. Theol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself 
appears to have made little use of this title: he raises a difficulty 
about it (Mark xii. 35-3711). But this verse of Ep. to Romans 
shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one 
of the conditions of Messiahship ; similarly 2 Tim. ii. 8 (where the 
assertion is made a part of St. Paul’s ‘ Gospel’); Acts ii. 30; Heb. 
vii. 14 ‘it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah’ (see 
also Eus. H. £. I. vii. 17, Joseph and Mary from the same tribe). 
Neither St. Paul nor the Acts nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more 
nearly how the descent is traced. For this we have to go to 
the First and Third Gospels, the early chapters of which embody 
wholly distinct traditions, but both converging on this point. There 
is good reason to think that St. Luke i, ii had assumed substan- 
tially its present shape before a.p. 70 (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, 
P- 49). 

In Zest. XI. Patriarch. we find the theory of a double descent from Levi 
and from Judah (Sym. 7 dvaornoe yap Kupios éx Tod Aevel ds dpxiepéa Kat éx 
Tov 'lovda ws Bacti<a, Ocdy nat avOpwrov: Gad. 8 omws Tiujowow 'Iovday xal 
Acvei* Ste && aitay avaredet Kvpios, owrip Te “Iapand, &c. 3 cf. Hatnack’s 
note, Patr. Apost.i.52). This is no doubt an inference from the relationship 
of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke i. 36). 


kata odpka .. . KaTd mveuua are Opposed to each other, not as 
‘human’ to ‘divine,’ but as ‘body’ to ‘spirit,’ both of which in 
Christ are human, though the Holiness which is the abiding pro- 
perty of His Spirit is something more than human. See on kara 
mvedp. dyiac. below. 

4. dpioOévros: ‘designated.’ It is usual to propose for this 
word an alternative between (i) ‘proved to be,’ ‘marked out as 
being’ (dexA€évros, dmopavOévros Chrys.), and (ii) ‘appointed,’ ‘ in- 
stituted,’ ‘ installed,’ in fact and not merely in idea. For this latter 
sense (which is that adopted by most modern commentators) the 
parallels are quoted, Acts x. 42 obrds earw 6 @piopevos tad Tod Ceod 
Kpitns (avrwy Kal vexpov, and xvii. 31 péAdNee xpivew . . . ev avdpi o 
épice. The word itself does not determine the meaning either 
way : it must be determined by the context. But here the particular 
context is also neutral; so that we must look to the wider context 
of St. Paul’s teaching generally. Now it is certain that St. Paul 
did not hold that the Son of God decame Son by the Resurrection. 
The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; 
viii. 9 ; cf. Col. i. 15-19). At the same time he ad regard the 
Resurrection as making a difference—if not in the transcendental 
relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cogni- 


8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Z. 4. 


sance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to 
the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil. ii. g 8:4 cat 6 cds airov 
imeptpwoe, cai é€xapicato ait@ 7d dvoua 7 imep wav dvopa), This is 
sufficiently expressed by our word ‘designated,’ which might 
perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. 
It is true that Christ decomes Judge in a sense in which He does 
not become Son; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external 
creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it 
were, endorses and proclaims that right. 
The Latin versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was 
raedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat.] ad Joc.; cf. Introd. § 7). 
ilary of Poitiers has des‘inatus, which Rufinus also prefers. Tertullian 
reads definitus. 
viod @e0d. ‘Son of God,’ like ‘Son of Man,’ was a recognized 
title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. 2; 4 Ezra vii. 28, 29; xiii. 32, 
37, 52; xiv. 9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the 
Messiah as ‘ My Son,’ though the exact phrase ‘Son of God’ does 
not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely 
find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Matt. xxvii. 43, 
John x. 36, cf. Matt. xxi. 37 f. a/, it cannot be said that He did 
not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made 
upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mark iii. 11, v. 7]; the cen- 
turion, Mark xv. 391|), and it is implied by the words of the 
Tempter (Matt. iv. 3, 61) and the voice from heaven (Mark 
i. 11], ix. 7). The crowning instance is the confession of 
St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Lagza, 
‘ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Matt. xvi. 16. It 
is consistent with the whole of our Lord’s method that He should 
have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that 
He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spon- 
taneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it sur- 
prising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church 
to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of 
Christ: see esp.the common text of the Gospel of St. Mark, i. 1 (where 
the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely 
early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very 
direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its 
strengthening addition povoyejs, may be followed in Swete, Ajosé. 
Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of 
Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed, 
In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates 
from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul re- 
garded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation ; 
and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as 6 tus vids 
(Rom. viii. 32), 6 éavrod vids (viii. 3), he intends to cover the period 
of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the povoyevys with the 


I 4.] ' THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 9 


pre-existent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think that 
the Early Church, so far as it reflected upon these terms, under- 
stood them differently. 


There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the 
words of Ps. ii. 7 ‘ Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.’ They 
are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. 11]]); (ii) the Transfiguration (Mark ix. 7 |l); 
(iii) the Resurrection (Acts xiii. 33). We can see here the origin of the Ebio- 
nite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the 
doctrin: of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2 Cor. iv. 4, 8&c., wt sep.) 
and Johannean (John i. 1 ff.). The moments in question are so many steps 
in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and 
returned to God, not stages in the gradual deification of one who began his 
career as Ydos avOpuTos. 


év Suvdper: not with viod Gcov, as Weiss, Lips. and others, ‘Son 
of God 2 power,’ opposed to the present state of humiliation, but 
rather adverbially, qualifying épiaOévros, ‘declared with might to be 
Son of God.’ The Resurrection is regarded as a ‘miracle’ or 
‘signal manifestation of Divine Power.’ Comp. esp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4 
eotavpaOn e& doGevetas, dAda (7 ek Svvdyews Geod. This parallel de- 
termines the connexion of év du». 

kata Tveipa Gywouvyns : not (i) = Tvedpa’Ayor, the Third Person 
in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), 
because the antithesis of odpé and mvetua requires that they shall 
be in the same person; nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns 
(even Lid.) = the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature 
were coextensive with the cap& and the Divine Nature were co- 
extensive with the mvedua, which would be very like the error of 
Apollinaris; but (iii) the human mvedpa, like the human odpé, 
distinguished however from that of ordinary humanity by an 
exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. Heb. ii. 17; iv. 15 ‘it 
behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren... 
yet without sin’). 


Gy:wotvn, not fonnd in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of 
the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Pss. xcv. 6 [xcvi. 6 
‘strength’]; xcvi. 12 [xcvii.12 ‘holy name,’ lit. ‘memorial’]; cxliv. 5 
{exlv. 5 ‘honour’]). In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute; 
but in a Macc, iii. 12 we have 4 Tod Témov dyiwotrn. In Test. XII. Pair. 
Levi 18 the identical phrase mvedp. ayiwo. occurs of the saints in Paradise. 
The passage is Christian in its character, but may belong to the original 
work and is in any case probably early. If so, the use of the phrase is se 
different from that in the text, that the presumption would be that it was not 
coined for the first time by St. Paul. The same instance would show that 
the phrase does not of itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. The 
avevpua ay.wavrns, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity 
or Divine Personality resided. The clear definition of this point was one of 
the last results of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth 
centuries (Loofs, Dogmengesch. § 39,3). For dy.wo. see on ayo ver. 7. 


é£ dvactdcews vexpdv: a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. 
His was not a ‘resurrection of dead persons’ (‘ ajenrisynge of dead 


Lo EPISTLE 10 THE ROMANS [I. 4, 5. 


men’ Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rather 
vexpov Or ek vexpov (as in X Pet. i, 3); and it is probable that this 
form is only avoided because of e& dvucrdcews coming just before, 
But vexpav coalesces closely in meaning with avacr., so as to give it 
very much the force of a compound word, ‘by a dead-rising’ 
( Todtenauferstehung), ‘a resurrection such as that when dead per- 
sons rise.’ Christ is ‘the first-born from the dead’ (Col. i. 18). 

tod Kupiou pay. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God 
as equivalent of Adonat, Jahveh, this word does not in itself 
necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah 
(Mark xii. 36, 3711; Ps. Sol. xvii. 36 Bacwhed’s airav xpiords xvpios) 
without thereby pronouncing Him to be ‘God’; they expressly 
distinguished between the Messiah and the J/emra or ‘ Word’ of 
Jehovah (Weber, A//syn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians 
Kuptos denotes the idea of ‘ Sovereignty,’ primarily over themselves 
as the society of believers (Col. i. 18, &c.), but also over all creation 
(Phil. ii. 10, rr; Col. i. 16, 17).. The title was given to our Lord 
even in His lifetime (John xiii. 13 ‘Ye call me, Master (6 dda- 
oxados), and, Lord (6 Kips): and ye say well; for so I am’), but 
without a full consciousness of its significance: it was only after 
the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central 
belief (Phil. ii. 9 ff., &c.). 

5. €\dBopev. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that 
St. Paul associates himself with the other Apostles. 

xdpts is an important word with a distinctively theological use 
and great variety of meaning: (1) objectively, ‘sweetness,’ ‘at- 
tractiveness,’ a sense going back to Homer (Od. viii. 175); Ps. xlv. 
(xliv.) 3 é£exvOn xapis ev xeeoi cov: Eccl. x. 12 Adyot oroparos 
cofod xapis: Luke iv. 22 Adyou xapuros: (2) subjectively ‘ favour,’ 
‘kindly feeling,’ ‘good will,’ especially as shown by a superior 
towards an inferior. In Eastern despotisms this personal feeling 
on the part of the king or chieftain is most important: hence 
eipeiv ydpw is the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Gen. 
vi. 8; xviii. 3, &c.); in many of these passages (esp. in anthropo- 
morphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy 
with man) it is used of ‘ finding favour’ in the sight of God. Thus 
the word comes to be used (3) of the ‘favour’ or ‘good will’ 
of God; and that (a) generally, as in Zech. xii. 10 exye@. . mvetpa 
xaperos Kai oixrippod, but far more commonly in N. T. (Luke ii. 4c, 
John i. 14, 16, &c.); (8) by a usage which is specially characteristic 
of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to 
opetAnpa, ‘debt’ (Rom. iv. 4), and to épya, ‘ works’ (implying merit, 
Rom. xi. 6), ‘umearned favour’—with stress upon the fact that 
it is unearned, and therefore as bestowed not upon the righteous 
but on sinners (cf. esp. Rom. v. 6 with v. 2). In this sense the 
word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justification. 


Ate 5.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 11 


(4) The cause being put for the effect ydpus denotes (a) ‘the State 
of grace or favour’ which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. 2), or 
(8), like xdptopa, any particular gift or gifts of grace (mAnpys xdpiros 
Acts vi. 8). We note however that the later technical use, esp. 
of the Latin grata, for the Divine prompting and help which 
precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactly 
to the usage of N. T. (5) As xdps or ‘kindly feeling’ in the 
donor evokes a corresponding xdpis or ‘ gratitude’ in the recipient, 
it comes to mean simply ‘thanks’ (1 Cor. x. 30). 

xdpwv here = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all 
Christians and by virtue of which he is one; é&mooroAjy = the more 
peculiar gifts of an Apostle. 

We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as 
conferred upon him by Christ (8 of)—we may add, acting through 
His Spirit, as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding 
from the Spirit (1 Cor. xii, &c.). 

eis braxony miotews: May be rendered with Vulg. ad obediendum 
fide provided that wior. is not hardened too much into the sense 
which it afterwards acquired of a ‘body of doctrine’ (with art. 
rj mioree Jude 3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine, 
though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist: mors 
is still, what it is predominantly to St. Paul, the lively act or impulse 
of adhesion to Christ. In confessing Christ the lips ‘obey’ this 
impulse of the heart (Rom. x. 10). From another point of view, 
going a step further back, we may speak of ‘obeying the Gospel’ 
(Rom, x. 16). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is 
appropriated. See below on ver. 17. 

év mact tots Over. Gif. argues for the rendering ‘among all 
nations’ on the ground that a comprehensive address is best suited 
to the opening of the Epistle, and to the proper meaning of the 
phrase mavra ra vn (cf. Gen. xviii. 18, &c.). But St. Paul’s com- 
mission as an Apostle was specially to the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 8), and it 
is more pointed to tell the Roman Christians that they thus belong 
to his special province (ver. 6), than to regard them merely as one 
among the mass of nations. This is also clearly the sense in which 
the word is used in ver. 13. Cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 21 f. 

bwép tod Svéuatos adtod. This is rather more than simply ‘for 
His glory.’ The idea goes back to the O. T. (Ps. evi. [cv.] 8; 
Ezek. xx. 14; Mal. i. 11). The Name of God is intimately 
connected with the revelation of God. Israel is the instrument or 
minister of that revelation; so that by the fidelity of Israel the 
revelation itself is made more impressive and commended in the 
eyes of other nations. But the Christian Church is the new Israel: 
and hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when 
gained serves in like manner to commend the further revelation 
made of God in Christ (airod, cf. Acts v. 41; Phil. ii. 9). 


12 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 6, 7. 


6. év ofs: not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish com- 
munity among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church 
among Gentile communities. 

kAntoi “Ingod Xpiotod: ‘called ones of Jesus Christ’: gen. of 
possession. 

7. ey Pap : om. Gg, schol. cod. 47 (14 év ‘Popy ore év tg eEnynoe 
obre €v TO pyTe pynwovevet, i. €. Some commentator whom the Scholiast 
had before him). G reads maou rois ovow ev ayamn Gceot (similarly 
d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply 
mace Tois ovow év ‘Poy év ayaty Geov), The same MS. omits roi 
év ‘Poun in ver. 15. These facts, taken together with the fluc- 
tuating position of the final doxology, xvi. 25-27, would seem 
to give some ground for the inference that there were in circulation 
in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local 
references had been removed. It is however important to notice 
that the authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. xiv 
are quite different from those which omit év ‘Poug here and in 
ver.15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, 
§ 6. 

kAynTots dylots. KAnry dyia represents consistently in LXX the 
phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. ‘an holy convocation’ 
(so eleven times in Lev. xxiii and Ex. xii. 16). The rendering ap- 
pears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used being one 
with which the LXX translators were not familiar. Whereas in 
Heb. the phrase usually runs, ‘o# such a day there shall be a holy 
convocation,’ the LXX treat the word translated convocation as an 
adj. and make ‘day’ the subject of the sentence, ‘such a day 
(or feast) shall be «Ayrj dyia, i.e. specially appointed, chosen, 
distinguished, holy (day).’ This is a striking instance of the way 
in which St. Paul takes a phrase which was clearly in the first 
instance a creation of the LXX and current wholly through 
it, appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts its mean- 
ing, substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Obviously 
xAntois has the same sense as xAnros in ver. 1: as he himself was 
‘called’ to be an Apostle, so all Christians were ‘called’ to be 
Christians; and they personally receive the consecration which 
under the Old Covenant was attached to ‘times and seasons,’ 


For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting «Anr?) dyla 
we are indebted to Dr. Driver :— 

«AnTH corresponds to N11, from 81) fo ca//, a technical term almost 
wholly confined to the Priests’ Code, denoting apparently a special religious 
meeting, or ‘convocation,’ held on certain sacred days. 

It is represented by *An77, Ex. xii. 16b; Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, 27, 35, 36; 
Num. xxviii. 25. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has ‘ om such 
a day there shall be a holy convocation,’ the LXX have ‘such a day shall 
be «An7? ayia,’ i.e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject, 
and use «Anrj with its proper force as an adj. ‘shall be a called (1.¢, 


I. 7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 13 


a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished *), Aoly (day)*; ef. «A. in 4. ix. 
165 and Rom.i.1. They read analogously wi with SU?D in Lev. xxiii. a al 
éopral xvpiov, as wadécere aitds wAnrds dyias (cf. v. 37), 21 wal kadéoere 
TauTny tiv hyépav KAnTHV? ayia éota byiv. In Lev. xxiii. 3 (cf. v. 24), 
«#AnT?) ayia seems to be in apposition with dvdnavois. The usage of xAqrTq 
in Lev. xxiii is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to 
have the form of a subst. (sc. jyépa) ; cf. érixrAnTOs. 

This view of «A. is supported by their rendering of S17 elsewhere. In 
Ex. xii. 16a, Lev. xxiii. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and 
render it by a verb, kAnOqoerat ayia, and dyias eadécerte respectively. 

In Num. xxviii. 18, 26 (kal 7 Hucpa TOv véwy .... émixAntos ayia ora 
tpiv: similarly xxix, 1, 7, 12), they express it by éxleAnros (the same word 
used (1 #uépa % mpwrn erixAnTOos ayia éora butv) 2b. i. 16; xxvi. 9, for the 
ordinary partic. called, summoned), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of 
specially appointed (cf. Josh. xx. 9 af modes ai érixAnTot Tots viois Iopand),. 

Is. i. 13 ‘the calling of a convocation’ is represented in LXX by #pépay 
HeyaAny, and iv. 5 ‘all her convocations’ by ta wepiei'kAw adrijs. 

From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term 
Np, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pro- 


nounced it not as a subst. N11, but as a participle NYPD (é called’). 


dytos. The history of this word would seem to be very parallel 
to that of «Anrois. It is more probable that its meaning developed 
by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension 
from within outwards. Its connotation would seem to have been 
at first physical and ceremonial, and to have become gradually 
more and more ethical and spiritual. (1) The fundamental idea 
appears to be that of ‘separation.’ So the word ‘holy’ came 
to be applied in all the Semitic languages, (2) to that which was 
“set apart’ for the service of God, whether things (e.g. 1 Kings vii. 
51 [37]) or persons (e. g. Ex. xxii. 31 [29]). But (3) inasmuch as 
that which was so ‘set apart’ or ‘ consecrated’ to God was required 
to be free from blemish, the word would come to denote ‘ freedom 
from blemish, spot, or stain’—in the first instance physical, but 
by degrees, as moral ideas ripened, also moral. (4) At first the 
idea of ‘holiness, whether physical or moral, would be directly 
associated with the service of God, but it would gradually become 
detached from this connexion and denote ‘freedom from blemish, 
spot, or stain,’ in itself and apart from any particular destination. 
In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself, and we 
find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e.g. 
1 Sam. vi. 20). And in proportion as the conception of God itself 
became elevated and purified, the word which expressed this 
central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more 
severe and awful purity, till at last it becomes the culminating 
and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature. 
When once this height had been reached the sense so acquired 


* Biel (Zex. tn LXX.) cites from Phavorinus the gloss, #A., } «adcory eal } 
efox@7aTy. 


14 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [nz 


would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tendency 
would be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness in 
the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency 
is formulated in the exhortation, ‘Ye shall be holy; for I, the 
Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. xix. 2, &c.). 

Such would appear to have been the history of the word up to 
the time when St. Paul made use of it. He would find a series of 
meanings ready to his hand, some lower and some higher; and he 
chooses on this occasion not that which is highest but one rather 
midway in the scale. When he describes the Roman Christians as 
dyin, he does not mean that they reflect in their persons the attri- 
butes of the All-Holy, but only that they are ‘ set apart’ or ‘conse- 
crated’ to His service. At the same time he is not content to rest 
in this lower sense, but after his manner he takes it as a basis or 
starting-point for the higher. Because Christians are ‘ holy’ in the 
sense of ‘consecrated,’ they are to become daily more fit for the 
service to which they are committed (Rom. vi. 17, 18, 22), they are 
to be ‘transformed by the renewing’ of their mind (Rom. xii. 2). 
He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as 
St. Peter, ‘As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also 
holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); because it is 
written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy’ (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). 

We note that-Ps. Sol. had already described the Messianic 
people as Aads aytos (kai cuvdger Kady Gytov, ob apnynoerar ev Sixacoovvy 
xvii. 28; cf. Dan. vii. 18-27; viii. 24). Similarly Zvoch ciii. 2; 
cvili. 3, where ‘books of the holy ones = the roll of the members 
of the Kingdom’ (Charles). The same phrase had been a designa- 
tion for Israel in O. T., but only in Deut. (vii. 6; xiv. 2, 21; xxvi. 
19; xxviii. 9, varied from Ex. xix. 6 vos dywov). We have thus 
another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title 
hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the 
Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him. 


There is a certain element of conjecture in the above sketch, which is 
inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had 
been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins. The instances 
above given will show this. The main problem is how to account for the 
application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures, 
both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is 
that in the latter case it means ‘separated’ or ‘set apart’ for God, and in 
the former case that it means ‘separate from evil’ (sejumnctus ab omni vitio, 
labis expers). But the link between these two meanings is little more than 
verbal; and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God, whether 
in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch), is derivative 
tather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of 
which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Delitzsch 
in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopidie, ed. 2, s. v. ‘ Heiligkeit Gottes.’ Instruc- 
tive discussions will be found in Davidson, Zze&ze/, p. xxxix. f.; Robertson 
Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 132 ff., 140 (140 ff., 150 ed. 2); Schultz, 
Theology of the Old Testament, ii. 131, 167 ff. A treatise by Dr. J. Agar 


a | THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 15 


Beet is on a good method, but is somewhat affected by critical questicns as 
to the sequence of the documents. 


There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul’s 
Epp.: 1, a Thess. Gal. ri ékkAnoia (rais éxkdnoiats); 1, 2 Cor. tH 
eked. + Toig dyiots ; 1 Cor. Rom. xAnrois dyiots ; Rom. Phil. race rois 
dyios; Eph. Col. rots dyiows cat morois. 

The idea of the local Church, as a unit in itself, is more promi- 
nent in the earlier Epp.; that of individual Christians forming part of 
the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more prominent 
in the later. And it would be natural that there should be some 
such progression of thought, as the number of local churches multi- 
plied, and as the Apostle himself came to see them in a larger 
perspective. It would however be a mistake to argue at once 
from this that the use of ékxAyoia for the local Church necessarily 
came first in order of time. On the other side may be urged the 
usage of the O. T., and more particularly of the Pentateuch, where 
exkAynota constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole 
people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt. xvi. 18. 
But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue. 


Rudolf Sohm’s elaborate Kérchenrecht (Leipzig, 1892) starts from the 
assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church asa whole. But just 
this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance. 


xdpts Kal eipyvy. Observe the combination and deepened re- 
ligious significance of the common Greek salutation yaipew, and 
the common Heb. salutation Shalom, ‘Peace.’ ydpis and eiphym are 
both used in the full theological sense: xdpis = the favour of God, 
cipnyn = the cessation of hostility to him and the peace of mind 
which follows upon it. 

There are four formulae of greeting in N. T.: the simple 
xaipew in St. James; xapis cat eipyvy in Epp. Paul. (except 1 and 
2 Tim.) and in 1, 2 St. Peter; xdpus, eAcos, eipyvy in the Epistles 
of Timothy and 2 St. John; €Acos kat eipyvyn Kat dyamn in St. Jude. 

cipyvn. We have seen how xapis had acquired a deeper sense in 
N. T. as compared with O. T.; with eipyyy this process had taken 
place earlier. It too begins as a phrase of social intercourse, 
marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the 
assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave 
place to overtures of friendship (Eipyyn co Jud. xix. 20, &c.). But 
the word.soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation 
of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God 
and man (Ps. xxix. [ xxviii. ] II Kvpios evAoynoer Tov Aady avTod Ev 
eipnyy + IXXXv, [Ixxxiv. ] 8 Aadnoet cipnrynv emi TOY Kady av’Tov: 27d. 10 
Sixacoovvy Kai cipnyn Karepiknoav: CXiX. [CXviii.] 165 epnvn modAy Trois 
ayan@or rév vopoy: Is. lili. 5 maideia eipyyns quar em avtdév: Jer. Xiv. 
13 aAnOeay Kai eipnyny daow ent ths ys: Ezek. xxxiv. 25 diadnoopas 


16 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 7. 


tO Aavid Siabyenv eipnrns [cf. xxxvii. 26]. Nor is this use confined 
to the Canonical Scriptures: cf. Znoch v. 4 (other reff. in Charles, 
ad loc.); Jubilees i. 15, 29; xxii. 9; xxxiii. 12, 30, &c.; it was one 
of the functions of the Messiah to bring ‘peace’ (Weber, Alsyn. 
Theol. p. 362 f.). 


The nearest parallel for the use of the word in a salutation as here is 
Dan. iii. 98 [31]; iv. 34 (LXX); iii. 98 [31]; vi. 25 (Theodot.) elpqvn dpiv 
mAnOvv Gein. 

Gnd Gcod tatpds pav Kat Kuptou “Inood Xpiotos. The juxta- 
position of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the 
proofs already supplied by wv. 1, 4, that St. Paul, if not formally 
enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which 
cannot really be distinguished from it. The assignment of the 
respective titles of ‘Father’ and ‘ Lord’ represents the first begin- 
ning of Christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms 
and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions 
in 1 Cor. viii. 6 GAN’ jpiv cis Geos 6 martnp, €£ 08 Ta madvTa, Kai Tpeis eis 
avy, Kai ets Kupios "Inoods Xprords, dt’ od Ta madvta, Kat Hpueis dt avTod. 
The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen 
and the Christians’ God seems to show that ja = at least primarily, 
‘us Christians’ rather than ‘ us men.’ 

Not only does the juxtaposition of ‘ Father’ and ‘ Lord’ mark 
a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ; it also marks an 
important stage in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is 
found already some six years before the composition of Ep. to 
Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle 
(1 Thess. i. 1; cf. 2 Thess. i. 2). This shows that even at that 
date (a.D. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It 
is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of 
Ep. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the 
triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier 
(2 Cor. xiii. 14). There is nothing more wonderful in the history 
of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which 
this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and 
without controversy among accepted Christian truths. 

tatpés jpav. The singling out of this title must be an echo of 
its constant and distinctive use by our Lord Himself. The doctrine 
of the Fatherhood of God was taught in the Old Testament (Ps. 
Ixvili. 5; Ixxxix. 26; Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; Ixiv. 8; Jer. 
xxxi. 9; Mal. i. 6; ii. 10); but there is usually some restriction or 
qualification—God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of 
a particular class such as the weak and friendless. It may also be 
said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained 
in the stress which is laid on the ‘ loving-kindness’ of God (e. g. in 
such fundamental passages as Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 compared with Ps. 
cil, 13). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ in 


I. 1-7.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 17 


the Old Testament breaks into full bloom in the New. ‘It is 
placed by our Lord Himself in the fore-front of the conception of 
God. It takes however a two-fold ramification : 6 warjp ipav [quar, 
gov, avrév] (e. g- twenty times in St. Matt.), and 6 warp pov [6 zarnp| 
(e. g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). In particular this second 
phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father; so 
that when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of 
this and other Epistles, 6 Maryjp is the natural term to use. The 
mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the sarjp rod Kupiov 
jav "Incod Xpicrod (which is expressed in full in 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 
3; Col. i. 3; cf. Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. xi.31, but not Eph. iii. 14; Col. 
ii. 2); so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in 
jar, to bring out the connexion between the source of ‘ grace and 
peace’ and its recipients. 

It is no doubt true that rarnp is occasionally used in N. T. in the 
more general sense of ‘ Creator’ (James i. 17 ‘Father of lights,’ 
i.e. in the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies; Heb. xii. 9 
‘Father of spirits’; cf. Acts xvii. 28, but perhaps not Eph. iv. 6 
matnp mavtwy, Where mdvray may be masc.). It is true also that 6 
matnp T@v GAwy in this sense is common in Philo, and that similai 
phrases occur in the early post-apostolic writers (e. g. Clem. Rom. 
ad Cor. xix. 2; Justin, Afol. i. 36, 61; Tatian, Or. ¢. Graec. 4). 
But when Harnack prefers to give this interpretation to Paér in 
the earliest creeds (Das Apost. Glaubensbekenniniss, p. 20), the 
immense preponderance of N. T. usage, and the certainty that the 
Creed is based upon that usage (e. g. in 1 Cor. viii. 6) seem to he 
decisive against him. On the early history of the term see esp 
Swete, Agost. Creed, p. 20 ff. 


The Theological Terminology of Rom. i. 1-7. 


In looking back over these opening verses it is impossible not to 
be struck by the definiteness and maturity of the theological teach- 
ing contained in them. It is remarkable enough, and characteristic 
of this primitive Christian literature, especially of the Epistles of 
St. Paul, that a mere salutation should contain so much weighty 
teaching of any kind ; but it is still more remarkable when we think 
what that teaching is and the early date at which it was penned. 
There are no less than five distinct groups of ideas all expressed 
with deliberate emphasis and precision: (1) A complete set of 
ideas as to the commission and authority of an Apostle; (2) A 
complete set of ideas as to the status in the sight of God of a Chris- 
tian community ; (3) A clear apprehension of the relation of the 
new order of things to the old; (4) A clear assertion of what we 
should call summarily the Divinity of Christ, which St. Paul re- 
garded both in the light of its relation to the expectations of his 

c 


18 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [i 8-16. 


countrymen, and also in its transcendental reality, as revealed by or 
inferred from the words and acts of Christ Himself; (5) A some- 
what advanced stage in the discrimination of distinct Persons in 
the Godhead. We observe too how St. Paul connects together 
these groups of ideas, and sees in them so many parts of a vast 
Divine plan which covers the whole of human history, and indeed 
stretches back beyond its beginning. The Apostle has to the full 
that sense which is so impressive in the Hebrew prophets that he 
himself is only an instrument, the place and function of which are 
clearly foreseen, for the accomplishment of God’s gracious pur- 
poses (compare e. g. Jer. i. 5 and Gal. i. 15). These purposes are 
working themselves out, and the Roman Christians come within 
their range. 

When we come to examine particular expressions we find that 
a large proportion of them are drawn from the O.T. In some 
cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated 
(kAnrés, apwpicpevos); in other cases an old phrase has been 
adopted with comparatively little modification (imép rod dvdparos 
avrov, and perhaps eipyyn); in others the transference involves 
a larger modification (8odA0s "Incod Xprorod, xdpis, KAnTot dytot, 
Kup.os, Geos matnp); in others again we have a term which has ac- 
quired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity 
appropriates (emayyeAta [ mpoemnyyetraro |, ypahai aya, avaoracts vexpav, 
dyiot); in yet others we have a new coinage (dmdoroNos, evayyéAuov), 
which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the 
other Apostles, but to Christ Himself. 


ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH. 


I. 8-15. God knows how long I have desired to see you 
—a hope which I trust may at last be accomplished—and 
to deliver to you, as to the rest of the Gentile world, my 
message of salvation. 


*In writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to 
God, through Him Who as High Priest presents all our prayers 
and praises, for the world-wide fame which as a united Church you 
bear for your earnest Christianity. °*If witness were needed to 
show how deep is my interest in you, I might appeal to God Himself 
Who hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses 
‘to Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. 
2° He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips, and how 
every time I kneel in prayer it is my petition, that at some near day 


I. 8.| ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 19 


I may at last, in the course which God’s Will marks out for me, 
really have my way made clear to visit you. "For I have a great 
desire to see you and to impart to you some of those many gifts 
(of instruction, comfort, edification and the like) which the Holy 
Spirit has been pleased to bestow upon me, and so to strengthen 
your Christian character. “I do not mean that I am above 
receiving or that you have nothing to bestow,—far from it,—but 
that I myself may be cheered by my intercourse with you (ev tyiv), 
or that we may be mutually cheered by each other’s faith, I by 
yours and you by mine. **I should be sorry for you to suppose 
that this is a new resolve on my part. The fact is that I often 
intended to visit you—an intention until now as often frustrated 
—in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from my labours 
among you, as in the rest of the Gentile world. ™“ There is no 
limit to this duty of mine to preach the Gospel. To all without 
distinction whether of language or of culture, I must discharge 
the debt which Christ has laid upon me. * Hence, so far as the 
decision rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of 
salvation to you too at Rome. 


8. Sid. Agere autem Deo gratias, hoc est sacrificium laudis 
offerre: et tdeo addit per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificem 
magnum Orig. 

 mloris Guay. - For a further discussion of this word see below 
on ver. 17. Here it is practically equivalent to ‘ your Christianity,’ 
the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian carrying with it 
the direct consequences of that act upon the character, Much 
confusion of thought would be saved if wherever ‘faith’ was 
mentioned the question were always consciously asked, Who or 
what is its object? It is extremely rare for faith to be used in 
the N. T. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object. In 
this Epistle ‘faith’ is nearly always ‘faith zm Christ#.’ The object 
is expressed in iii. 22, 26 but is left to be understood elsewhere. 
In the case of Abraham ‘faith’ is not so much ‘faith in God’ as 
‘faith in the promises of God,’ which promises are precisely those 
which are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more 
strictly true to say that the zmmediate object of faith is in most 
cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ. At the same 
time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of 
that whole ‘ economy’ of which the Incarnation of Christ formed 
apart. Thus it is God Who justifies though the moving cause of 
justification is usually defined as ‘faith in Christ. And inasmuch 
as it is He Who both promised that Christ should come and also 


20 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 8-10. 


Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying 
faith may be described as ‘faith in God.’ The most conspicuous 
example of this is ch, iv. 5 1@ 8€ py epyatouevw, morevovrs 8 em rov 
Sixatotvta tov doeBn, Aoyilerat  miotts avToU eis Bixarocvyny. 

9. \atpedw connected with Adrpis, ‘hired servant,’ and Aarpor, ‘hire’: 
(i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power 
(da tiv rod Geod Aarpeiay Plato, Apol. 23 B); (ii) in LXX always of 
the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence 
Augustine: Aarpeia . . . aut semper aut tam frequenter ut fere 
semper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench, 
Syn. p. 120f.), 

Aatpevew is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meaning 
than Aeroupyeiv: (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God 
where Aetroupyeiy (Ae:roupyés) is used also of the service of men (Josh. i. 1 
¢.1.; 1 Kings i. 4, xix. 21; 2 Kings iv. 43, vi. 15. &c.) ; (ii) but on the other 
hand it is used of the service both of priest and people, esp. of the service 
rendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7 70 Sw5exagpvAor 
& éxreveia Aatpevov, cf. Rom. ix. 4); Ae:roupyeiv is appropriated to the 
ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. x. 11, &c.). Where Aecroupyciv 
(Ae:roupyés) is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscious 
reference to it (e. g. in Rom. xiii. 6 and esp. xy. 16). 


év to mvedpatt pou. The mveipa is the organ of service; the 
evayyéAtov (= 7d Kypvypa Tod evayyediov) the sphere in which the 
service is rendered. 

él TOv mpoceuxav pou: ‘a/ my prayers,’ at all my times of prayer 
(cf. 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph. i. 16; Philem. 4). 


10. efmws. On the construction see Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 276. 


75 woré: a difficult expression to render in English; ‘now at 
length’ (AV. and RV.) omits zoré, just as ‘in ony maner sumtyme’ 
(Wic.) omits 757; ‘sometime at the length’ (Rhem.) is more accu- 
rate, ‘some near day at last.’ In contrast with viv (which denotes 
present time simply) #6) denotes the present or near future in 
relation to the process by which it has been reached, and with 
a certain suggestion of surprise or relief that it has been reached so 
soon as it has. So here 75 = ‘now, after all this waiting’: moré 
makes the moment more indefinite. On #3, see Baumlein, Graech. 
Paritikeln, p. 138 ff. 

edoSwOjcopna1. The word has usually dropped the idea of é8és 
and means ‘to be prospered’ in any way (e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 2 6 
av «vodara, where it is used of profits gained in trade; similarly in 
LXX and Zest. XJJ. Pair. Jud.1, Gad 7); and so here Mey. Gif. 
RV., &c. It does not, however, follow that because a metaphor is 
often dropped, it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested 
by the context. We are thus tempted to render with the earlier 
English Versions and Vulg. prosperum iter habeam (‘1 have 
a spedi wey’ Wic.). 


I. 10-15.] ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 21 


é&v t@ OcAnpaze tov @eot. St. Paul has a special reason for 
laying stress on the fact that all his movements are in the hands 
of God. He has a strong sense of the risks which he incurs in 
going up to Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 30 f.), and he is very doubtfu’ 
whether anything that he intends will be accomplished (Hort, 
Rom. and Eph. p. 42 ff.). 


éAGeiv: probably for écre éAGeiv (Burton, § 371 ¢). 


ll. émimo8G: ém- marks the direction of the desire, ‘to you- 
ward’; thus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it 
rather strengthens its emotional character. 

Xdépiopa mveupazixdy. St. Paul has in his mind the kind of gifts 
—-partly what we should call natural and partly transcending the 
ordinary workings of nature—described in 1 Cor. xii-xiv; Rom. 
xii. 6 ff. Some, probably most, of these gifts he possessed in an 
eminent degree himself (1 Cor. xiv. 18), and he was assured that 
when he came to Rome he would be able to give the Christians 
there the fullest benefit of them (Rom. xv. 29 oida 8€ drt epxdpevos 
mpos buaGs év mAnpopatt evdoyias Xpistod éAcdooua), His was con- 
spicuously a case which came under the description of John vii. 38 
‘He that believeth on Me, as the scripture hath said, out of his 
belly shall flow rivers of living water,’ i.e. the believer in Christ 
should himself become a centre and abounding source of spiritual 
influence and blessing to others. 

eis TO ornptxOyvar: eis 7d with Infin. expressing purpose ‘is employed 
with special frequency by Paul, but occurs also in Heb. 1 Pet. and Jas.’ 

(Burton, § 409). 

12. cupmapakdnOjvar: the subject is éeué, which, from the ovr- in 
ovprapaky. and év dyiv, is treated in the latter part of the sentence as 
equivalent to mueis. We note of course the delicacy with which the 
Apostle suddenly checks himself in the expression of his desire to 
impart from his own fulness to the Roman Christians: he will not 
assume any airs of superiority, but meets them frankly upon their 
pwn level: if he has anything to confer upon them they in turn 
will confer an equivalent upon him. 


13. ot 0éAw: ov« otopat (D*) G, non arbitror de g Ambrstr.; an instance 
of Western paraphrase. 


ox, ‘I may get.’ 

14. “ENAngi te kal BapBdpots: a resolution into its parts of mdyra 
ra €6m, according to (i) divisions of language, (ii) degrees of culture. 

15. to kar éud. It is perhaps best, with Gif. Va. Mou., to take 
To Kar’ eué as Subject, zpd@vpoy as predicate: so g Vulg. guod in me 
promtum est. In that case 16 xar’ eve will = ‘I, so far as it rests 
with me,’ i.e. ‘under God’—L’homme propose, Dieu dispose; cf. é 
T@ Ocdnpare tov Gcod above. Differently Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) who 


ae EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, 17. 


makes 1d xar’ eve adverbial, guod in me est promilus sum: sO too 
deAmbrstr. The objection to this is that St. Paul would have 
written mpcOupds «iu. Mey. Lips. and others take ro car’ eue mpdOv- 
pov together as subject of [éorw] edayyedicacGu, ‘hence the eager- 
ness on my part (is) to preach.’ In Eph. vi. 21; Phil. i 12; Col 
iv. 7 ra kar’ eve = ‘ my affairs.’ 


THESIS OF THE EPISTLE: THE RIGHTEOUSNESS 
OF GOD BY FAITH. 


I. 16,17. That message, humble as it may seem, casts 
a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how 
His righteousness flows forth and embraces man, when tt ts 
met by Faith, or loyal adhesion to Christ. 


16 Even there, in the imperial city itself, I am not ashamed of my 
message, repellent and humiliating as some of its features may 
seem. For it is a mighty agency, set in motion by God Himself, 
and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security 
every believer—first in order of precedence the Jew, and after him 
the Gentile. ** Do you ask how this agency works and in what it 
consists? It is a revelation of the righteousness of God, manifested 
in a new method by which righteousness is acquired by man,— 
a method, the secret of which is Faith, or ardent loyalty to Jesus 
as Messiah and Lord; which Faith is every day both widening its 
circles and deepening its hold. It was such an attitude as this 
which the prophet Habakkuk meant when, in view of the desolating 
Chaldaean invasion, he wrote: ‘The righteous man shall save his 
life by his faith, or loyalty to Jehovah, while his proud oppressors 
perish.’ 

16. éwatoxdvopat. St. Paul was well aware that his Gospel was 
‘unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness ’ 
(1 Cor. i. 23). How could it be otherwise, as Chrysostom says, he 
was about to preach of One who ‘ passed for the son of a carpenter, 
brought up in Judaea, in the house of a poor woman... and who 
died like a criminal in the company of robbers?’ It hardly needed 
the contrast of imperial Rome to emphasize this. On the attraction 


which Rome had for St. Paul see the Introduction, § 1; also Hicks 
in Studia Biblica, iv. 11. 


We have an instance here of a corruption coming into the Greek text 
through the Latin: éwax. éxi edayyedov G, erubesco super evangelium g, 


I. 16.} RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH _—_.2 


confundor de evangelio Aug. The Latin renderings need not imply any 
various reading. The barbarism in G, which it will be remembered has an 
interlinear version, arose from the attempt to find a Greek equivalent for 
every word in the Latin. This is only mentioned as a clear case of a kind of 
corruption which doubtless operated elsewhere, as notably in Cod. Bezae. 
It is to be observed, however, that readings of this kind are necessarily quite 
late, 


Suvapis is the word properly used of the manifestations of Divine 
power. Strictly indeed dvvayis is the inherent attribute or faculty, 
evepyeta is the attribute or faculty in operation. But the two words 
are closely allied to each other and dvvayis is so often used for 
exerted power, especially Divine superhuman power, that it practi- 
cally covers evépyea. St. Paul might quite well have written 
evépyeva here, but the choice of dvvayus throws the stress rather more 
on the source than on the process. The word dvvayis in a context 
like this is one of those to which modern associations seem to give 
a greater fulness and vividness of meaning. We shall not do wrong 
if we think of the Gospel as a ‘force’ in the same kind of sense as 
that in which science has revealed to us the great ‘ forces’ of nature. 
It is a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale, 
and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. This con- 
ception only differs from the scientific conception of a force like 
‘heat’ or ‘electricity ’ in that whereas the man of science is too apt 
to abstract his conception of force from its origin, St. Paul con- 
ceives of it as essentially a mode of personal activity ; the Gospel 
has all God’s Omnipotence behind it. As such it is before all 
things a real force, not a sham force like so many which the 
Apostle saw around him; its true nature might be misunderstood, 
but that did not make it any less powerful: 6 Adyos yap 6 rod cravpod 
Tois pev dmohupevas pwpia eori, Tois dé calopevors Huiv Suvapis Ceod €ori 
1 Cor. i. 18; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20; 1 Thess. i. 5. 

eis cwrnpiav. The fundamental idea contained in cwrnpta is the 
removal of dangers menacing to life and the consequent placing 
of life in conditions favourable to free and healthy expansion. 
Hence, as we might expect, there is a natural progression corre- 
sponding to the growthin the conception of life and of the dangers 
by which it is threatened. (i) In the earlier books of the O. T. 
oor. is simply deliverance from physical peril (Jud. xv. 18; 1 Sam. 
xi. 9, 13, &c.). (ii) But the word has more and more a tendency 
to be appropriated to the great deliverances of the nation (e. g. Ex. 
xiv. 13, Xv. 2, the Passage of the Red Sea; Is. xlv. 17, xlvi. 13, lii. 
10, &c., the Return from Exile). (iii) Thus by a natural transition 
it is associated with the Messianic deliverance ; and that both (a) in 
the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Ps. Sol. x. 
9; xii. 7; cf. Zest, XII. Pair. Sym. 7; Jud. 22; Benj.9, 10 [the form 
used in all these passages is owrnpiov|; Luke i. 69, 71, 77), and (8) 
in the higher form’ of the Christian hope (Acts iv. a2; xiii. 26, &c.). 


a4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, 17. 


In this latter sense cwrnpia covers the whole range of the Messianic 
déliverance, both im its negative aspect as a rescuing from the 
Wrath under which the whole world is lying (ver. 18 ff.) and in its 
positive aspect as the imparting of ‘eternal life’ (Mark x. 301; 
John iii. 15, 16, &c.). Both these sides are already combined in 
the earliest extant Epistle (drt ovx ero nuas 6 Ocds eis dpyqy, GAN’ eis 
mepiroinow owtnpius dia Tov Kupiov npav Incod Xpiorov, Tov amobavévros 
trép nua, a eire ypyyopapev cite calevdopev dua ov aird (nowper 
1 Thess. v. 9, 10). 

twpatov: om. BGg, Tert. adv. Mare. Lachmann Treg. WH. 
bracket, because of the combination of B with Western authorities ; 
but they do no more than bracket because in Epp. Paul. B has a 
slight Western element, to which this particular reading may be- 
long. In that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority. 
Marcion appears to have omitted zpérov as well as the quotation 
from Habakkuk, and it is possible that the omission in this small 
group of Western MSS. may be due to his influence. 

For the precedence assigned to the Jew comp. Rom. iii. 1, ix. 1 ff., 
xi. 16 ff., xv. 9; also Matt. xv. 24; Jo. iv. 22; Acts xiii. 46. The 
point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate 
the opposition of St. Paul to the Jews. He defends himself and 
his converts from their attacks; but he fully concedes the priority of 
their claim and he is most anxious to conciliate them (Rom. xv. 31 ; 
cf. ix. 1 ff., x. 1 ff.; xv. 8, &c.: see also Introduction § 4). 

17. Stxatocdvn Oeod. For some time past it has seemed to 
be almost an accepted exegetical tradition that the ‘ righteous- 
ness of God’ means here ‘a righteousness of which God is the 
author and man the recipient,’ a righteousness not so much ‘of 
God’ as ‘from God,’ i.e. a state or condition of righteousness 
bestowed by God upon man. But quite recently two protests 
have been raised against this view, both English and both, as 
it happens, associated with the University of Durham, one by 
Dr. Barmby in the Pulp: Commentary on Romans, and the other 
by Dr. A. Robertson in Zhe Thinker for Nov. 1893 *; comp. also a 
concise note by Dr. T. K. Abbott ad/oc. There can be little doubt 
that the protest is justified; not so much that the current view is 
wrong as that it is partial and incomplete. : 

The ‘ righteousness of God’ is a great and comprehensive idea 
which embraces in its range both God and man; and in this 
fundamental passage of the Epistle neither side must be lost sight 
of. (1) In proof that the righteousness intended here is primarily 
‘the righteousness of God Himself’ it may be urged: (i) that this 
is consistently the sense of the righteousness of God in the Old 
Testament and more particularly in passages closely resembling the 
present, such as Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] 2, ‘The Lord hath made 


* The point is; however, beginning to attract some attention in Germany. 


I. 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 25 


known His salvation: His righteousness hath He revealed (dmexd- 
Avyev) in the sight of the nations,’ which contains the three key- 
words of the verse before us; (ii) that elsewhere in the Epistle 
dex, Geod = ‘the righteousness of God Himself’ (several of the 
passages, ©. g. iii. 21, 22, x. 3, have the same ambiguity as the 
text, but iii. 5, 25, 26 are quite clear); (iii) that the marked 
antithesis doxadvmrera yap opy) Ocov in ver. 18 compared with 
Sixatoovvn yap Oevv amoxadvmrera in ver. 19 requires that the gen. 
@cov shall be taken in the same sense in both places. These are 
arguments too strong to be resisted. 

(2) But at the same time those which go to prove that die. Gcod is 
a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less con- 
vincing. (i) The righteousness in question is described as being 

‘revealed éx miorews eis rior; and in the parallel passage iii. 22 it is 
‘qualified as Sik. Geod dia mictews "Ingod Xpiorov eis mdvras Tovs muoTevor- 
tas, where its relation to the human recipient is quite unmistak- 
able. (ii) This relation is further confirmed by the quotation from 
Habakkuk where the epithet dixatos is applied not to God but to 
man, Observe the logical connexion of the two clauses, dtxarooivn 
yap Gcod dmoxadinrerat... kadds yéypa mrat, ‘O dé dikaos ek miotews 
(nostra, (iii) Lastly, in the parallel Phil. iii. 9 the thought of the 
Apastle is made quite explicit : py éxov éuny Sucaoodyny tiv ék vdpov, 
G4 rHv du rictews Xptorod, THY ek Ceod Sixatoovyyy emi tH miote. The 
insertion of the preposition ek transfers the righteousness from 
Ged to man, or we may say traces the process of extension by 
which it passes from its source to its object. 

For (3) the very cogency of the arguments on both sides is 
enough to show that the two views which we have set over against 
each other are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive. The 
righteousness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds 
from God but zs the righteousness of God Himself: it is this, how- 
ever, not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and 
embracing the personalities of men. It is righteousness active and 
energizing ; the righteousness of the Divine Will as it were pro- 
jected and enclosing and gathering into itself human wills. St. Paul 
fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the 
Epistle, ch. iii. 26 eis 76 eivat adrov Sikatoy Kai Stxaodvra tov ek TmiaTeas 
‘Inood. ‘The second half of this clause is in no way opposed to the 
first, but follows from it by natural and inevitable sequence: God 
attributes righteousness to the believer because He is Himself 
righteous. The whole scheme of things by which He gathers to 
Himself a righteous people is the direct and spontaneous expression 
of His own inherent righteousness: a necessity of His own Nature 
impels Him to make them like Himself. The story how He has 
done so is the burden of the ‘Gospel.’ For a fuller development 
of the idea contained in ‘ the righteousness of God’ see below. 


26 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZL 17. 


éx miotews. This root-conception with St. Paul means_in_the 
first instance simply the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah 
and Son of God; the affirmation of that primitive Christian Creed 
‘which we have already had sketched in wv. 3, 4. It is the ‘ Yes’ of 
the soul when the central proposition of Christianity is presented to 
it. We hardly need more than this one fact, thus barely stated, to 
explain why it was that St. Paul attached such immense importance 
to it. It is so characteristic of his habits of mind to go to the root 
of things, that we cannot be surprised at his taking for the centre of 
his system a principle which is only less prominent in other writers 
because they are content, if we may say so, to take their section of 
doctrine lower down the line and to rest in secondary causes instead 
of tracing them up to primary. Two influences in particular seem 
to have impelled the eager mind of St. Paul to his more penetrative 
view. One was his own experience. He dated all his own spiri- 
tual triumphs from the single moment of his vision on the road to 
Damascus. Not that they were all actually won there, but they 
were all potentially won. That was the moment at which he was 
as a brand plucked from the burning: anything else that came to 
him later followed in due sequence as the direct and inevitable out- 
come of the change that was then wrought in him. It was then 
that there flashed upon him the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth, 
whom he had persecuted as a pretender and blasphemer, was really 
exalted to the right hand of God, and really charged with infinite 
gifts and blessings for men. The conviction then decisively won 
sank into his soul, and became the master-key which he applied to 
the solution of all problems and all struggles ever afterwards. 

But St. Paul was a Jew, an ardent Jew, a Pharisee, who had 
spent his whole life before his conversion in the study of the Old 
Testament. And it was therefore natural to him, as soon as he 
began to reflect on this experience of his that he should go back to 
his Bible, and seek there for the interpretation of it. When he 
did so two passages seemed to him to stand out above all others. 
The words iors, mustevw are not very common in the LXX, but 
they occurred in connexion with two events which were as much 
turning-points in the history of Israel as the embracing of Chris- 
tianity had been a turning-point for himself. The Jews were in 
the habit of speculating about Abraham’s faith, which was his 
response to the promise made to him. The leading text which 
dealt with this was Gen. xv. 6: and there it was distinctly laid 
down that this faith of Abraham’s had consequences beyond itself: 
another primary term was connected with it: ‘Abraham believed 
God and it (his belief) was reckoned unto him for righteousness.’ 
Again just before the beginning of the great Chaldaean or Baby- 
lonian invasion, which was to take away their ‘ place and nation’ 
from the Jews but which was at the same time to purify them in 


I.17.] | RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 27 


the furnace of affliction, the Prophet Hakakkuk had announced that 
one class of persons should be exempted on the ground of this 
very quality, ‘faith.’ ‘The just or righteous man shall live by 
faith.” “Here once more faith was brought into direct connexion 
with righteousness. When therefore St. Paul began to interrogate 
his own experience and to ask why it was that since his conversion, 


i.e. since his acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, it had ) 


become so much easier for him to do right than it had been before ; 
and when he also brought into the account the conclusion, to which 
the same conversion had led him, as to the significance of the Life 
and Death of Jesus for the whole Church or body of believers ; what 
could lie nearer at hand than that he should associate faith and 
righteousness together, and associate them in the way of referring 
all that made the condition of righteousness so much more possible 
under Christianity than it had been under Judaism, objectively to 
the work of the Messiah, and subjectively to the appropriation of 
that work by the believer in the assent which he gave to the one 
proposition which expressed its value ? 

It will be seen that there is more than one element in this con- 
ception which has to be kept distinct. As we advance further in 
the Epistle, and more particularly when we come to the great 
passage iii. 21-26, we shall become aware that St. Paul attached to 
the Death of Christ what we may call a sacrificial efficacy. He 
regarded it as summing up under the New Covenant all the func- 
tions that the Mosaic Sacrifices had discharged under the Old. As 
they had the effect, as far as anything outward could have the 


effect, of placing the worshipper_in_a position of fitness for ap- 


proach to God; so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed 
“the Christian worshipper in this position. That was a fact objec- 
tive-and external to himself of which the Christian had the benefit 
simply by being a Christian; in other words by the sole act of 
faith. If besides this he also found by experience that in following 
with his eye in loyal obedience (Jike the author of Ps. cxxiii) his 
Master Christ the restraint of selfishness and passion became far 
easier for him than it had been, that was indeed a different matter ; 
but that too was ultimately referable to the same cause; it too 
dated from the same moment, the moment of the acceptance of 


Christ. And although in this case more might be said to be done 
by the man himself, yet even there Christ was the true source of | 


strength and inspiration; and the more reliance was placed on this 
strength and inspiration the more effective it became ; so much so 
that St. Paul glories in his infirmities because they threw him back 
upon Christ, so that when he was weak, then he became strong. _ 

On this side the influence of Christ upon the Christian life was 
a continuous influence extending as long as life itself. But even 
here the critical moment was the first, because it established the 


) 


\ 


\ 


\ 


28 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [z. 17. 


relation. It was like magnetism which begins to act as soon as 
the connexion is complete. Accordingly we find that stress is 
constantly laid upon this first moment—the moment of being 

/ ‘baptized into Christ’ or ‘ putting on Christ,’ although it is by no 
means implied that the relation ceases where it began, and on the 
contrary it is rather a relation which should go on strengthening. 
Here too the beginning is an act of faith, but the kind of faith 
which proceeds ¢x micrews eis riotw. We shall have the process 
described more fully when we come to chapters vi-—viii. 

éx miotews eis miotw. The analogy of Ps, Ixxxiii. 8 (Ixxxiv. 7) 
éx Suvapews eis Svvapev, and of 2 Cor. ii. 16 ex 6avarov eis Oavarov... 
€x Cons eis Conv, seems to show that this phrase should be taken as 
widely as possible. It is a mistake to limit it either to the deepen- 
ing of faith in the individual or to its spread in the world at large 
(ex fide predicantium in fidem credentium Sedulius): both are 
included: the phrase means ‘starting from a smaller quantity of 
faith to produce a larger quantity,’ at once intensively and ex- 
tensively, in the individual and in society. 

6 Sixatos ék miotews. Some take the whole of this phrase 
together. ‘The man whose righteousness is based on faith,’ as if 
the contrast (not expressed but implied) were between the man 
whose righteousness is based on faith and one whose righteousness 
is based on works. It is true that this is quite in harmony with 
St. Paul’s teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. iii. 22, 25; 
Gal. ii. 16: but it was certainly not the meaning of Habakkuk, 
and if St. Paul had intended to emphasize the point here it lay 
very near at hand to write 6 dé ek micrews dixatos, and so remove all 
ambiguity. It is merely a question of emphasis, because in the 

| ordinary way of taking the verse it is implied that the ruling 
' motive of the man, the motive which gives value to his righteous- 
\ ness and gains for him the Divine protection, is his faith. 

A few authorities (C*, Vulg. codd. non opt. Harcl., Orig.-lat. Hieron.) 
insert pov (6 58 Six. pou é« miaTews, or 6 5é dik. én miarews pov Cyoeras) from 
the LXX. Marcion, as we should expect, seems to have omitted not only 
mp@rov but the quotation from Habakkuk; this would naturally follow 
from his antipathy to everything Jewish, though he was not quite consistent 
in cutting out all quotations from the O. T. He retains the same quotation 
(not, however, as a quotation) in Gal. iii. 4, the context of which he is able 
to turn against the Jews. For the best examination of Marcion’s text see 
Zahn, Gesch. d. Neutest. Kanons, ii. 515 ff. 


The word dixawos and its cognates. 


B{katos, Suxatootvy. In considering the meaning and application ot these 
terms it is important to place ourselves at the right point of view—at the 
point of view, that is, of St. Paul himself, a Jew of the Jews, and not either 
Greek or mediaeval or modern. Two main facts have to be borne in mind 
in regard to the history of the words dixacos and d:xaoobvn. The first is that 
although there was a sense in which the Greek words covered the whole 


I. 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 29 


range of right action (Zth. Nic. V.i. 15 dueacocdvn=TeAcia dpery with the 
single qualification that it is mpds érepoy, the duty to one’s neighbour*), yet 
in practice it was far more commonly used in the narrower sense of Justice 
(distributive or corrective zed. 2 ff.). The Platonic designation of d:caocivy 
as one of the four cardinal virtues (Wisdom, Temperance, and Courage or 
Fortitude, being the others) had a decisive and lasting influence on the whole 
subsequent history of the word in the usage of Greek philosophy, and of all 
those moral systems which have their roots in that fertile soil. In giving 
a more limited scope to the word Plato was only following the genius of his 
people. The real standard of Greek morals was rather rd xaAév—that which 
was morally noble, impressive, admirable—than 7d Sixa:ov. And if there 
was this tendency to throw the larger sense of d:aa:oovv7 into the background 
in Greek morals, that tendency was still more intensified when the scene was 
changed from Greece to Rome. The Latin language had no equivalent at 
all for the wider meaning of Sita:oovvn. It had to fall back upon jus?ztza, 
which in Christian circles indeed could not help being affected by the domi- 
nant use in the Bible, but which could never wholly throw off the limiting 
conditions of its origin. This is the second fact of great and outstanding 
significance. We have to remember that the Middle Ages derived one half of 
its list of virtues through Cicero, from the Stoics and Plato, and that the four 
Pagan virtues were still further thrown into the shade by the Christian triad. 

Happily for ourselves we have in English two distinct words for the two 
distinct conceptions, ‘justice’ and ‘righteousness.’ And so especially from 
the time of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, the conception 
‘righteousness’ has gone far to recover its central importance. The same 
may perhaps be said of the Teutonic nations generally, through the strength 
of the Biblical influence, though the German branch has but the single word 
Gerechtigkett to express the two ideas. With them it is probably true 
that the wider sense takes precedence of the narrower. But at the time 
when St. Paul wrote the Jew stood alone in maintaining the larger sense of 
the word full and undiminished. 

It is a subordinate question what was the origin of the fundamental idea. 
A recent writer (Smend, 4itiest. Religionsgesch. p. 410 ff.) puts forward the 
view that this was the ‘ being in the right,’ as a party to a suit in a court of 
law. It may well be true that as Six meant in the first instance ‘ usage,’ 
and then came to mean ‘right’ because usage was the earliest standard of 
right, in like manner the larger idea of ‘righteousness’ may have grown 
up out of the practice of primitive justice. It may have been first applied 
to the litigant who was adjudged to be ‘in the right,’ and to the judge, who 
awarded ‘the right’ carefully and impartially. 

This is matter, more or less, of speculation. In. any case the Jew of 
St. Paul’s day, whatever his faults, assigned no inadequate place to 
Righteousness. It was with him really the highest moral ideal, the principle 
of all action, the goal of all effort. 

If the Jew had a fault it was not that righteousness occupied an inadequate 
place in his thoughts; it was rather that he went a wrong way fo attain to 
it. “IopajA be diwxov vopov Sikaoatirns eis vduov ove EpOace, is St. Paul’s 
mournful verdict (Rom. ix. 31). For a Jew the whole sphere of righteousness 
was taken up by the Mosaic Law. His one idea of righteousness was that 
of conformity to this Law. Righteousness was for him essentially obedience 
to the law. No doubt it was this in the first instance out of regard to the 
law as the expressed Will of God. But the danger ‘ay in resting too much 
in the code as a code and losing sight of the personal Will of a holy and 
good God behind it. The Jew made this mistake; and the consequence was 
that his view of obedience to the law became formal and mechanical. It is 
impossible for an impartial mind not to be deeply touched by the spectacle 


* Aristotle quotes the proverb éy 32 diarootvy avAAnBdqy waco’ apeTH Er. 


30 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [z. 17. 


of the religious leaders of a nation devoting themselves with so much earnest- 
ness and zeal to the study of a law which they believed to come, and which 
in a certain sense and measure really did come, from God, and yet failing so 
disastrously as their best friends allow that they did fail in grasping the 
law's true spirit. No one felt more keenly than St. Paul himself the full 
pathos of the situation. His heart bleeds for them (Rom. ix. 2); he cannot 
withhold his testimony to their zeal, though unhappily it is not a zeal 
according to knowledge (Rom. x. 2). ae 

Hence it was that all this mass—we must allow of honest though ill- 
directed effort—needed reforming. The more radical the reformation the 
better. There came One Who laid His finger upon the weak place and 
pointed out the remedy—at first as it would seem only in words in which the 
Scripture-loving Rabbis had been before Him: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind... 
and... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Matt. xxii. 37, 39 ll), 
and then more searchingly and with greater fulness of lustration and 
application, ‘There is nothing from without the man that going into him 
can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that 
defile the man’ (Mark vii. 15 ||); and then yet again more searchingly still, 
‘Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden... Take My yoke 
upon you and learn of Me... For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light’ 
(Matt. xi. 28-30). 

So the Master; and then came the disciple. And he too seized the heart 
of the secret. He too saw what the Master had refrained from putting with 
a degree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at least the 
majority of His reporters might leave the impression that this had been the 
case, though one, the Fourth Evangelist, makes Him speak more plainly). 
The later disciple saw that, if there was to be a real reformation, the first 
thing to be done was to give it a personal ground, to base it on a personal 
relationship. And therefore he lays down that the righteousness of the 
Christian is to be a ‘righteousness of faith.’ Enough will have been said in 
the next note and in those on é« micrews and dixarocvvn @cov as to the 
nature of this righteousness. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish con- 
ception of righteousness as cbedience to law, and of course goes far deeper 
than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness.. The specially 
Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passage is that the 
‘declaration of righteousness” on the part of God, the Divine verdict of 
acquittal, runs 27 advance of the actual practice of righteousness, and comes 
forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity. 

Sikatoby, SixatodcGar. The verb diacodv means properly ‘to pronounce 
righteous.’ It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. In so far as 
the person ‘ pronounced righteous’ is not really righteous it has the sense of 
‘amnesty’ or ‘forgiveness.’ But it cannot mean to ‘make righteous.’ 
There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous, but 
they are not contained, or even hinted at, in the word Siea:odv. That word 
means ‘to declare righteous,’ ‘ to treat as righteous’; it may even mean ‘to 
prove righteous’; but whether the person so declared, treated as, or proved 
to be righteous is really so, the word itself neither affirms nor denies. 

This rather sweeping proposition is made good by the following con- 
siderations :— 

(i) By the nature of verbs in -dw: comp. Sf. Comm. on 1 Cor. vi. 11 
‘How can &xaodv possibly signify “‘to make righteous?” Verbs indeed of 
this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use. e.g. 
tupdoor, “to make blind.” But when such words are derived from adjectives 
of moral meaning, as dfiodv, dcvody, Sicaodv, they do by usage and must 
from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to prove, or to treat 
«s worthy, holy, righteous.’ 


I. 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 31 


(ii) By the regular use of the word. Godet (p. 199) makes a bold 
assertion, which he is hardly likely to have verified, but yet which is probably 
right, that there is no example in the whole of classical literature where the 
word =‘ to maketighteous.’ The word however is not of frequent occurrence. 

(iii) From the constant usage of the LXX (O. T. and Apocr.), where the 
word occurs some forty-five times, always or almost always with the forensic 
or judicial sense. 

In the great majority of cases this sense is unmistakable. The nearest 
approach to an exception is Ps. lxxiii [Ixxii] 13 dpa pataiws éd:calwoa tiv 
xapdiav pov, where, however, the word seems to = ‘ pronounced righteous,’ in 
other words, ‘I called my conscience clear.’ In Jer. iii. 11; Ezek. xvi. 51, 
52 die. = ‘ prove righteous.’ 

(iv) From a like usage in the Pseudepigraphic Books: e.g. Ps. Sol. ii. 16; 
iii. 5; iv. 9; viii. 7, 27, 31; ix. 3 (in these passages the word is used con- 
sistently of ‘vindicating’ the character of God); justzjico 4 Ezr. iv. 18; 
x. 16; xii. 7; 5 Ezr. ii. 20 (Zibb. Apocr. ed. O. F. Fritzsche, p. 643)—all 
these passages are forensic; Afoc. Baruch. (in Ceriani’s translation from 
the Syriac) xxi. 9, 11 ; xxiv. I—where the word is applied to those who are 
‘declared innocent’ as opposed to ‘ sinners.’ 

(v) From the no less predominant and unmistakable usage of the N. T.: 
Matt. xi. 19; xii. 37; Luke vii. 29, 35; x. 29; xvi. 15; xvili. 14; Rom. ii. 
13; iii. 4; 1 Cor. iv. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16—to quote only passages which are 
absolutely unambiguous. 

(vi) The meaning is brought out in full in ch. iv. 5 7 52 pr) epyaCopuevy, 
morevovTe de emt Tov SikaovvTa TOY doEeBH, AoyiCeTaAL TiaTLS avTOD Eis SikaLo- 
avvnv. Here it is expressly stated that the person justified has nothing 
to show in the way of meritorious acts; his one asset (so to speak) is faith, 
and this faith is taken as an ‘ equivalent for righteousness.’ 

We content ourselves for the present with stating this result as a philo- 
logical fact. What further consequences it has, and how it fits into the 
teaching of St. Paul, will appear later: see the notes on dixacocdvn Oeod 
above and below. 

Sucatwua. For the force of the termination -va reference should be made 
to a note by the late T. S. Evans in Sf. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6, part of which 
is quoted in this commentary on Rom. iv. 2. dixaiwpya is the definite con- 
crete expression of the act of dicafwois: we might define it as ‘a declaration 
that a thing is Sicaorv, or that a person is dixaos.’ From the first use we get 
the common sense of ‘ ordinance,’ ‘statute,’ as in Luke i. 6; Rom. i. 32, ii. 
26, and practically viii. 4 ; from the second we get the more characteristically 
Pauline use in Rom. v. 16,18. For the special shades of meaning in these 
passages see the notes upon them. 

Sixaiwo1s. This word occurs only twice in this Epistle (iv. 25, v. 18), 
and not at all besides inthe N. T. Its place is taken by the verb d:xacody, 
just as in the Gospel of St. John the verb movevew occurs no less than 
ninety-eight times, while the substantive iors is entirely absent. In 
Meaning dixaiwors preserves the proper force of the termination -ovs: it 
denotes the ‘ process or act of pronouncing righteous,’ in the case of sinners, 
‘the act of acquittal,’ 


The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and in 
some Fewish Writings. 


The word miors has two leading senses, (1) fidelity and (a) belief. The 
second sense, as we have said, has its more exact significance determined by 
its object: it may mean, (i) belief in God; (ii) belief in the promises of 
God; (iii) belief in Christ; (iv) belief in some particular utterance, claim, or 
promise of God or Christ. 


32 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (I. 17. 


The last of these senses is the one most common in the Synoptic Gospels. 
‘Faith’ is there usually ‘belief in the miracle-working power of Christ or of 
God through Christ.’ It is (a) the response of the applicant for relief— 
whether for himself or another—to the offer expressed or implied of that 
relief by means of miracles (Mark v. 34]|; x. 52{]). The effect of the 
miracle is usually proportioned to the strength of this response (Matt. ix. 29 
Kata Thy TiatTv Udy yevnOnTw byuiv: for degrees of faith see Matt. viii. ro, 
26; Luke xvii. 5, &c.). In Acts iii. 16 the faith which has just before been 
described as ‘ faith in the Name’ (of Christ) is spoken of as ‘faith brought 
into being by Christ’ (% mio7ts 4 5 avtod). Faith is also (8) the confidence 
of the disciple that he can exercise the like miracle-working power when ex- 
pressly conferred upon him (Mark xi. 22-24 ||). This kind of faith our Lord 
in one place calls ‘faith in God’ (Mark xi. 22). There is one instance of 
‘faith’ used in a more general sense. When the Son of Man asks whether 
when He comes He shall find faith on the earth (Luke xviii. 8) He means 
‘faith in Himself,’ 

Faith in the performance of miracles is a sense which naturally passes 
over into the Acts (Actsiii. 16; xiv.g). We find in that book also ‘ ¢#e faith’ 
(4 mioms Acts vi. 7; xiii. 8; xiv. 22; xvi. 5; xxiv. 24), i.e. ‘the faith distinctive 
of Christians,’ belief that Jesus is the Son of God. ‘A door of faith’ (Acts 
xiv. 27) means ‘an opening for the spread of this belief.’ When tiozs is 
used as an attribute of individuals (7Anpns tiorews Acts vi. 5 of Stephen; xi. 
24 of Barnabas) it has the Pauline sense of the enthusiasm and force of 
character which come from this belief in Jesus. 

In the Epistle of St. James ziors is twice applied to prayer (Jas. i. 6; v. 
15), where it means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice 
it means ‘Christian faith’ (Jas. i. 3; ii. 1). In the controversial passage, 
Jas. ii. 14-26, where Faith is contrasted with Works, the faith intended is 
‘faith in God.’ One example of it is the ‘ belief that God is One’ (Jas. ii. 
Ig); another is the trust in God which led Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jas. ii. 
21), and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. ii. 23). Faith with 
St. James is more often the faith which is common to Jew and Christian ; 
even where it is Christian faith, it stops short of the Christian enthusiasm. 

In St. Jude, whose Epistle must on that account be placed late in the 
Apostolic age, faith has got the concrete sense of a ‘body of belief’—not 
necessarily a large or complete body, but, as we should say, ‘ the essentials 
of Christianity.’ As the particular point against which the saints are to 
contend is the denial of Christ, so the faith for which they are to contend 
would be the (full) confession of Christ (Jude 3 f., 20). 

In the two Epistles of St. Peter faith is always Christian faith (1 Pet. i. 5, 
7-9; ii.6; 2 Pet. i. 1, 5), and usually faith as the foundation of character. 
When St. Peter speaks of Christians as ‘guarded through faith unto salva- 
tion’ (1 Pet. i. 5) his use approaches that of St. Paul; faith is treated as the 
‘one thing needful.’ 

St. John, as we have seen, very rarely uses the word mioms (1 Jo. v. 4), 
though he makes up by his fondness for moreJw. With him too faith is 
.a very fundamental thing; it is the ‘victory which overcometh the world.’ 
It is defined to be the belief ‘that Jesus is the Son of God’ (1 Jo. v. 5° 
Compared with St. Paul’s conception we may say that faith with St. John is 
rather contemplative and philosophic, where with St. Paul it is active and 
enthusiastic. In the Apocalypse faith comes nearer to fidelity; it is belief 
steadfastly held (Rev. ii. 13, 19; xiii. 10; xiv. 12; cf. also mords i. 5; ii. 
Io, &c.). 

The distinctive use of ‘faith’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews is for faith in 
the fulfilment of God’s promises, a firm belief of that which is still future and 
unseen (éAm(opevay UmdcTacis, mpaypyaTayv éXeyxos ov BAeropevow Heb. xi. 1). 
This use not only runs through ch. xi, but is predominant in all the places 
where the word occurs (Heb. iv. 2; vi. 1; x. 22 f.; xii. 2; xiii. 7): it is not 


I. 17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 33 


found in St. Paul of promises the fulfilment of which is still future (for this 
he prefers éAmis: cf. Rom. viii. 25 ef 52 3 od BAétopen éATiCoper, 5: bmopovis 
drexdexdpeda). St. Paul does however use ‘ faith’ for the confidence of O.T. 
saints in the fulfilment of particular promises made to them (so of Abraham 
in Rom. iv). 

Going outside the N. T. it is natural that the use of ‘faith’ should be 
neither so high nor so definite. Still the word is found, and frequently 
enough to show that the idea ‘ was in the air’ and waiting only for an object 
worthy of it. ‘Faith’ enters rather largely into the eschatological teaching 
respecting the Messianic time. Here it appears to have the sense of ‘ fidelity 
to the O. T. religion.’ In the Psalms of Solomon it is characteristic of the 
Messiah Himself: Ps. Sol. xvii. 45 moipatywy 76 moipvioy Kupiov év migre Kat 
Sikaroovvp. In the other Books it is characteristic of His subjects. Thus 
4 Ezr. vi. 28 florebit autem fides et vincetur corruptela; vii. 34 veritas stabit 
et fides convalescet ; 44 (114) soluta est intemperantia, abscissa est incredu- 
litas (=amoria). In Apoc. Baruch. and Assump. Moys. the word has this 
sense, but not quite in the same connexion: Agoc. Bar. liv. 5 revelas ab- 
scondita immaculatis gui in fide subiecerunt se tibi et legi tuae; 21 glori- 
Jicabis fideles tuxta fidem corum ; \ix. 2 tncredulis tormentum ignis reser- 
vatum ; Ass. Moys. iv. 8 duae autem tribus permanebunt in pracposita fide, 
In Afoc. Bary lvii. 2 we have it in the sense of faith in the prophecy of com- 
ing judgement: fides tudicit futuri tunc gignebatur. Several times, in oppo- 
sition to the use in St. Paul, we find opera et fides combined, still in con- 
nexion with the ‘last things’ but retrospectively with reference to the life on 
earth. So 4 Ezraix. 7, 8 et erit, omnis qui salvus factus fuerit et gui po- 
terit effugere per opera sua vel per fidem in qua credidit, is relinguetur de 
praedictis periculis et videbit salutare meum in terra mea et in finibus 
mets ; xiii. 23 ipse custodibit gui in periculo inciderint, hi sunt gui habent 
opera et fidem ad Fortissimum. We might well believe that both these pas- 
sages were suggested, though perhaps somewhat remotely, by the verse of 
Habakkuk which St. Paul quotes. The same may be said of 5 Ezr. xv. 3, 
4 nec turbent te incredulitates dicentium, guoniam omnis incredulus in in- 
credulitate sua morietur (Libb. Apocr. p. 645, ed. O. F. Fritzsche). 

Among all these various usages, in Cananteal Books as well as Extra- 
canonical, the usage of St. Paul stands out markedly. It forms a climax to 
them all with the single exception of St. John. There is hardly one of the 
ordinary uses which is not represented in the Pauline Epistles. To confine 
vurselves to Ep. to Romans; we have the word (i) clearly used in the sense 
of ‘fidelity’ or ‘faithfulness’ (the faithfulness of God in performing His 
promises), Rom. iii. 3; also (ii) in the sense of a faith which is practically 
that of the miracle-worker, faith as the foundation for the exercise of spiritual 
gifts, Rom. xii. 3,6. We have it (iii) for a faith like that of Abraham in 
the fulfilment of the promises of which he was the chosen recipient, Rom. iv. 
passim. The faith of Abraham however becomes something more than 
a particular attitude in regard to particular promises; it is (iv) a standing 
attitude, deliberate faith in God, the key-note of his character; in ch, iy. the 
last sense is constantly gliding into this. A faith like Abraham’s is typical of 
the Christian’s faith, which has however both a lower sense and a higher: 
sometimes (v) it is in a general sense the acceptance of Christianity, Rom. i. 
5; x. 8,17; xvi. 26; but itis also (vi) that specially strong and confident 
acceptance, that firm planting of the character upon the service of Christ, 
which enables a man to disregard small scruples, Rom. xiv. 1, 22 f.3 cf. i. 
17. The centre and mainspring of this higher form of faith is (vii) defined 
more exactly as ‘faith in Jesus Christ,’ Rom. iii. 22 q.v., 26. This is the 
crowning and characteristic sense with St. Paul; and it is really this which 
he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive significance whick 
he does ascribe to it, even though the object is not expressed (as in i. 17 ; iii, 

’ Bb 


34 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, 17. 


27 ff.; v. 1, 2). We have seen that it is not merely assent or adhesion but 
enthusiastic adhesion, personal adhesion; the highest and most effective 
motive-power of which human character is capable. It is well to remember 
that St. Paul has all these meanings before him; and he glances from one to 
another as the hand of a violin-player runs over the strings of his violin, 


The Righteousness of God. 


The idea of the righteousness of God, imposing as it is in the 
development given to it in this Epistle, is by no means essentially 
a new one. It is one of those fundamental Biblical ideas which 
run through both Testaments alike and appear in a great variety of 
application. ‘The Hebrew prophets were as far as possible from 
conceiving of the Godhead as a metaphysical abstraction. The 
I AM THAT I AM of the Book of Exodus is very different from 
the dvrws dv, the Pure Being, without attributes because removed 
from all contact with matter, of the Platonizing philosophers. The 
essential properties of Righteousness and Holiness which charac- 
terized the Lord of all spirits contained within themselves the 
springs of an infinite expansiveness. Having brought into existence 
a Being endowed with the faculty of choice and capable of right 
and wrong action they could not rest until they had imparted to 
that Being something of themselves. The Prophets and Psalmists 
of the Old Testament seized on this idea and gave it grand and 
far-reaching expression. We are apt not to realize until we come 
to look to what an extent the leading terms in this main pro- 
position of the Epistle had been already combined in the Old 
Testament. Reference has been made to the triple combination of 
‘righteousness,’ ‘salvation’ and ‘revelation’ in Ps. xcviii. [xcvii.] 22 
similarly Is. lvi. 1 ‘ My salvation is near to come, and My righteous- 
ness to be revealed.’ The double combination of ‘ righteousness’ 
and ‘salvation’ is more common. In Ps. xxiv. [xxiii] 5 it is 
slightly obscured in the LXX: ‘He shall receive a blessing from 
the Lord and righteousness (éAenpoovrnv) from the God of his 
salvation (mapa @cod garjpos airod).’ In the Second Part of Isaiah 
it occurs frequently: Is, xlv. 21-25 ‘ There is no God beside Me ; 
a just God and a Saviour (Sicatos cai corjp). Look unto Me and 
be ye saved... .the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteous- 
ness and shall not return (or righteousness is gone forth from My 
mouth, a word which shall not return R. V. marg.)... Only in 
the Lord shall one say unto Me is righteousness and strength. ... 
In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified (a6 Kupiov 
dixarwOjcovrat), and shall glory’: Is, xlvi. 13 ‘I bring near My 
righteousness; it shall not be far off, and My salvation shall not 
tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel My glory’: Is, 
li. 5, 6 ‘My righteousness is near, My salvation is gone forth... 


I.16,17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 35 


My salvation shall be for ever, and My righteousness shall net be 
abolished.’ 

In all these passages the righteousness of God is conceived as 
‘going forth,’ as projected from the Divine essence and realizing 
itself among men, _In_Is. liv. 17 it is expressly said, ‘ Their 
righteousness [which] is of Me’; and in Is. xlv. 25 the process is 
described as one of justification (‘in the Lord shall all the seed of 
Israel be justified’: see above). In close attendance on the 
righteousness of God is His salvation; where the one is the other 
immediately follows. 

These passages seem to have made a deep impression upon 
St. Paul. To him too it seems a necessity that the righteousness 
of God should be not only inherent but energizing, that it should 
impress and diffuse itself as an active force in the world. 

According to St. Paul the manifestation of the Divine righteous- 
ness takes a number of different forms. Four of these may be 
specified. (1) It is seen in the fidelity with which God fulfils His 
promises (Rom. iii. 3, 4). (2) It is seen in the punishment 
which God metes out upon sin, especially the great final punish- 
ment, the jpépa dpyijs cat dmoxadiwews Sixasoxpioias tov Geod (Rom. 
ii. 5). Wrath is only the reaction of the Divine righteousness 
when it comes into collision with sin. (3) There is one signal mani- 
festation of righteousness, the nature of which it is difficult for us 
wholly to grasp, in the Death of Christ. We are going further 
than we have warrant for if we set the Love of God in opposition 
to His Justice; but we have the express warrant of Rom. iii. 25, 26 
for regarding the Death on Calvary as a culminating exhibition of 
the Divine righteousness, an exhibition which in some mysterious 
way explains and justifies the apparent slumbering of Divine re- 
sentment against sin. The inadequate punishment hitherto in- 
flicted upon sin, the long reprieve which had been allowed man- 
kind to induce them to repent, all looked forward as it were to that 
culminating event. Without it they could not have been; but the 
shadow of it was cast before, and the prospect of it made them 
possible. (4) There is a further link of connexion between what is 
said as to the Death of Christ on Calvary and the leading pro- 
position laid down in these verses (i. 16, 17) as to a righteousness 
of God apprehended by faith. The Death of Christ is of the 
nature of a sacrifice (cy r@ avrod atpart) and acts as an Aacrnpiov 
(iii. 25 q. v.) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which 
reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide 
diffusion amongst men. This is the great ‘going forth’ of the 
Divine Righteousness, and it embraces in its scope all believers. 
The essence of it, however, is—at least at first, whatever it may be 
ultimately—that it consists not in making men actually righteous 
but in ‘ justifying ’ or treating them as if they were righteous. 


da 


36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, 17. 


Here we reach a fundamental conception with St. Paul, and one 
which dominates all this part of the Epistle to the Romans, so that 
it may be well to dwell upon it in some detail. 

We have seen that a process of transference or conversion 
takes place ; that the righteousness of which St. Paul speaks, though 
it issues forth from God, ends in a state or condition of man. How 
could this be? The name which St. Paul gives to the process 
is diKaiwors (iv. 25, v. 18). More often he uses in respect to 
it the verb dixaoicba (iii. 24, 28, v. 1, 9, viii. 30, 33). The full 
phrase is dixatotca ék mictews: which means that the believer, by 
virtue of his faith, is ‘accounted or treated as if he were righteous’ 
in the sight of God. More even than this: the person so ‘ac- 
counted righteous’ may be, and indeed is assumed to be, not 
actually righteous, but doe8js (Rom. iv. 5), an offender against 
God. 

There is something sufficiently startling in this. The Christian 
life is made to have its beginning in a fiction. No wonder that 
the fact is questioned, and that another sense is given to the words 
—that d:xaoic@a is taken to imply not the attribution of righteous- 
ness in idea but an imparting of actual righteousness. The facts 
of language, however, are inexorable: we have seen that dexacody, 
ducaovoda have the first sense and not the second; that they are 
rightly said to be ‘forensic’; that they have reference to a judicial 
verdict, and to nothing beyond. To this conclusion we feel bound 
to adhere, even though it should follow that the state described 
is (if we are pressed) a fiction, that God is regarded as dealing 
with men rather by the ideal standard of what they may be than by 
the actual standard of what they are. What this means is that 
when a man makes a great change such as that which the first 
Christians made when they embraced Christianity, he is allowed 
to start on his career with a clean record; his sin-stained past 
is not reckoned against him. The change is the great thing; it 
is that at which God looks. As with the Prodigal Son in the 
parable the breakdown of his pride and rebellion in the one cry, 
‘Father, I have sinned’ is enough. The father does not wait 
to be gracious. He does not put him upon a long term of 
probation, but reinstates him at once in the full privilege of 
sonship. The justifying verdict is nothing more than the ‘best 
robe’ and the ‘ring’ and the ‘fatted calf’ of the parable (Luke 
xv. 22 f.). 

When the process of Justification is thus reduced to its simplest 
elements we see that there is after all nothing so very strange 
about it. It is simply Forgiveness, Free Forgiveness, The Parable 
of the Prodigal Son is a picture of it which is complete on two 
of its sides, as an expression of the attitude of mind required in 
the sinner, and of the reception accorded to him by God. To 


iar 


I.16,17.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 37 


insist that it must also be complete in a negative sense, and that 
it excludes any further conditions of acceptance, because no such 
conditions are mentioned, is to forget the nature of a parable. 
It would be as reasonable to argue that the father would be 
indifferent to the future conduct.of the son whom he has recovered 
because the curtain falls upon the scene of his recovery and is 
not again lifted. By pressing the argument from silence in this 
way we should only make the Gospels inconsistent with them- 
selves, because elsewhere they too (as we shall see) speak of 
further conditions besides the attitude and temper of the sinner. 

We see then that at bottom and when we come to the essence of 
things the teaching of the Gospels is not really different from the 
teaching of St. Paul. It may be said that the one is tenderly and 
pathetically human where the other is a system of Jewish Scho- 
lasticism. But even if we allow the name it is an encouragement 
to us to seek for the simpler meaning of much that we may be 
inclined to call ‘scholastic.’ And we may also by a little inspection 
discover that in following out lines of thought which might come 
under this description St. Paul is really taking up the threads of 
grand and far-reaching ideas which had fallen from the Prophets 
of Israel and had never yet been carried forwards to their legitimate 
issues. The Son of Man goes straight, as none other, to the 
heart of our common humanity; but that does not exclude the 
right of philosophizing or theologizing on the facts of religion, and 
that is surely not a valueless theology which has such facts as its 
foundation. 

What has been thus far urged may serve to mitigate the apparent 
strangeness of St. Paul’s doctrine of Justification. But there is 
much more to be said when we come to take that doctrine with 
its context and to put it in its proper place in relation to the whole 
system. 

In the first place it must be remembered that the doctrine belongs 
strictly speaking only to the beginning of the Christian’s career. 
It marks the initial stage, the entrance upon the way of life. It 
was pointed out a moment ago that in the Parable of the Prodigal 
Son the curtain drops at the readmission of the prodigal to his 
home. We have no further glimpse of his home life. To isolate 
the doctrine of Justification is to drop the curtain at the same 
place, as if the justified believer had no after-career to be re- 
corded. 

But St. Paul does not so isolate it. He takes it up and follows 
every step in that after-career till it ends in the final glory (obs 8¢ 
edikaiwoe, TovTous Kai éddéace Vili. 30). We may say roughly that 
the first five chapters of the Epistle are concerned with the doctrine 
of Justification, in itself (i. 16— iii. 30), in its relation to leading 
features of the Old Covenant (iii. 31—iv. 25) and in the conse- 


38 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 16, 17. 


quences which flowed from it (v. 1-21). But with ch. vi another 
factor is introduced, the Mystical Union of the Christian with the 
Risen Christ. This subject is prosecuted through three chapters, 
vi-viii, which really cover (except perhaps the one section vii. 
9-25)—and that with great fulness of detail—the whole career 
of the Christian subsequent to Justification. We shall speak of 
the teaching of those chapters when we come to them. 

It is no doubt an arguable question how far these later chapters 
can rightly be included under the same category as the earlier. 
Dr. Liddon for instance summarizes their contents as ‘ Justification 
considered subjectively and in its effects upon life and conduct. 
Moral consequences of Justification. (A) The Life of Justification 
and sin (vi. 1-14). (B) The Life of Justification and the Mosaic 
Law (vi. r5—vii. 25). (C) The Life of Justification and the work 
of the Holy Spirit (viii.)’ The question as to the legitimacy of 
this description hangs together with the question as to the meaning 
of the term Justification. If Justification=/ustitia infusa as well 
as imputata, then we need not dispute the bringing of chaps. vi-viii 
under that category. But we have given the reasons which compel 
us to dissent from this view. The older Protestant theologians dis- 
tinguished between Justification and Sanctification; and we think 
that they were right both in drawing this distinction and in 
referring chaps. vi-viii to the second head rather than to the first. 
On the whole St. Paul does keep the two subjects separate from 
each other; and it seems to us to conduce to clearness of thought 
to keep them separate. 

At the same time we quite admit that the point at issue is rather 
one of clearness of thought and convenience of thinking than 
anything more material. Although separate the two subjects run 
up into each other and are connected by real links. There is an 
organic unity in the Christian life. Its different parts and functions 
are no more really separable than the different parts and functions 
of the human body. And in this respect there is a true analogy 
between body and soul. When Dr. Liddon concludes his note 
(p. 18) by saying, ‘Justification and sanctification may be dis- 
tinguished by the student, as are the arterial and nervous systems 
in the human body; but in the living soul they are coincident and 
inseparable,’ we may cordially agree. The distinction between 
Justification and Sanctification or between the subjects of chaps. 
i. 16—v, and chaps. vi—viii is analogous to that between the arterial 
and nervous systems; it holds good as much and no more—no 
more, but as much. 

A further question may be raised which the advocates of the 
view we have just been discussing would certainly answer in the 
affirmative, viz. whether we might not regard the whole working 
out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps. 


FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 39 


vi-viii, as yet a fifth great expression of the Righteousness of Cod 
as energizing amongst men. We too think that it might be so 
regarded. It stands quite on a like footing with other manifes- 
tations of that Righteousness. All that can be said to the con- 
trary is that St. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this 
name. 


THE UNIVERSAL NEED: FAILURE OF 
THE GENTIBOES. 


I.18-82. This revelation of Righteousness, issuing forth 
Srom God and embracing man, has a dark background in 
that other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wicked- 
ness of men (ver. 18). 

There are three stages: (1) the knowledge of God which 
all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation 
(vv. 19-20) ; (2) the deliberate ignoring of this knowledge 
and idle speculation ending in idolatry (vv. 21-23); (3) the 
judicial surrender of those who provoke God by idolatry to 
every kind of moral degradation (vv. 24-32). 


1 This message of mine is the one ray of hope for a doomed 
world. The only other revelation, which we can see all around 
us, is a revelation not of the Righteousness but of the Wrath 
of God breaking forth—or on the point of breaking forth—from 
heaven, like the lightning from a thundercloud, upon all the 
countless offences at once against morals and religion of which 
mankind are guilty. They stifle and suppress the Truth within 
them, while they go on still in their wrong-doing (ev adu.). "It is 
not merely ignorance. All that may be known of God He has 
revealed in their hearts and consciences. *°For since the world 
has been created His attributes, though invisible in themselves, 
are traced upon the fabric of the visible creation, I mean, His 
Power to which there is no beginning and those other attributes 
which we sum up under the common name of Divinity. 

So plain is all this as to make it impossible to escape the 
responsibility of ignoring it. * The guilt of men lay not in their 
ignorance; for they had a knowledge of God. But in spite of 
that knowledge, they did not pay the homage due to Him as 


40 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ZL 18-82. 


God: they gave Him no thanks; but they gave the rein to futile 
speculations; they lost all intelligence of truth, and their moral 
sense was obscured. ™ While they boasted of their wisdom, they 
were turned to folly. ™In place of the majesty of the Eternal 
God, they worshipped some fictitious representation of weak and 
perishable man, of bird, of quadruped or reptile. 

*Such were the beginnings of idolatry. And as a punishment 
for it God gave them up to moral corruption, leaving them to 
follow their own depraved desires wherever they might lead, even 
to the polluting of their bodies by shameful intercourse. ** Repro- 
bates, who could abandon the living and true God for a sham 
divinity, and render divine honours and ritual observance to the 
creature, neglecting the Creator (Blessed be His name for ever !). 

* Because of this idolatry, I repeat, God gave them up to the 
vilest passions. Women behaved like monsters who had forgotten 
their sex. *’And men, forsaking the natural use, wrought shame 
with their own kind, and received in their physical degradation 
a punishment such as they deserved. 

*® They refused to make God their study: and as they rejected 
Him, so He rejected them, giving them over to that abandoned 
mind which led them into acts disgraceful to them as men: 
* replete as they were with every species of wrong-doing; with 
active wickedness, with selfish greed, with thorough inward de- 
pravity : their hearts brimming over with envy, murderous thoughts, 
quarrelsomeness, treacherous deceit, rank ill-nature; backbiters, 
® slanderers; in open defiance of God, insolent in act, arrogant in 
thought, braggarts in word towards man; skilful plotters of evil, 
bad sons, “dull of moral apprehension, untrue to their word, 
void of natural duty and of humanity: ** Reprobates, who, knowing 
full weil the righteous sentence by which God denounces death 
upon all who act thus, are not content with doing the things which 
He condemns themselves but abet and applaud those who practise 
them. 

18. There is general agreement as to the structure of this 
part of the Epistle. St. Paul has just_stated what the Gospel - 
is; he now goes on to show the necessity for_such—a—Gospel. 
The world is lost without it. Following what was for a Jew 


the obvious division, proof is given of a complete break-down in 
regard to righteousness (i) en the part of the Gentiles, (ii) on the 


I. 18.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 41 


part of the Jews. The summary conclusion of the whole seciion 
i. 18—iii. 20 is given in the two verses iii. 19, 20: it is that the 
whole world, Gentile and Jew alike, stands guilty before God. 
Thus the way is prepared for a further statement of the means of 
removing that state of guilt offered in the Gospela 


Marcion retained ver. 18, omitting @eov, perhaps through some accident 
on his own part or in the MS. which he copied (Zahn, w# sup. p. 516; the 
rather important cursive 47 has the same omission). Therest of the chapter 
with ii. 1 he seems to have excised. He may have been jealous of this 
trenchant attack upon the Gentiles. 


*Amoxahumrerat. How is this revelation made? Is the reference 
to the Final Judgement, or to the actual condition, as St. Paul 
saw it, of the heathen world? Probably not to either exclusively, 
but to both in close combination. The condition of the world 
seems to the Apostle ripe for judgement; he sees around him 
on all hands signs of the approaching end. In the latter half 
of this chapter St. Paul lays stress on these signs: he develops 
the droxaimrerat, present. In the first half of the next chapter 
he Brings out the final doom to which the signs are pointing. 
Observe the links which connect the two sections: dmoxahimrerat 
i. 18 = dmoxadvyis ii. 5; Spyq i. 18, il. 5,83 avaroddy7ros i. 20, 
ii, I. 

Spy} Geos. (1) In the O. T. the conception of the Wrath of 
God has special reference to the Covenant-relation. It is inflicted 
either (a) upon Israelites for gross breach of the Covenant (Lev. 
x. 1, 2 Nadab and Abihu; Num. xvi. 33, 46 ff. Korah; xxv. 3 
Baal-peor), or (8) upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen 
People (Jer. Lh r1—17; Ezek. xxxvi. 5). (2) In the prophetic 
writings this infliction of ‘wrath’ is gradually concentrated upon 
a great Day of Judgement, the Day of the Lord (Is. ii. to-22, &c.; 
Jer. xxx. 7, 8; Joeliii. 12 ff. ; Obad. 8 ff. ; Zeph. iii. 8 ff.). (3) Hence 
the N. T. use seems to be mainly, if not altogether, eschatological : 
cf. Matt. iil. 7; 1 Thess. i. 10; Rom. ii. 5, v.g; Rev. vi. 16, 17. 
Even 1 Thess. ii. 16 does not seem to be an exception: the state 
of the Jews seems to St. Paul to be only a foretaste of the final 
woes. See on this subject esp. Ritschl, Rechifertigung u. Versoh- 
nung, ii. 124 ff. ed. 2. 


Similarly Euthym.-Zig. "AwoxcaAdarerat #.7.X. by hucpg Sndovér: Kpicews. 
We must remember however that St. Paul regarded the Day of Judgement as 
near at hand. 


éy G8ixia, ‘living in unrighteousness fhe while’ Moule. 

KatexovTwy. xaréxev = (i) ‘to hold fast’ Lk. viii. 15; 1 Cor. xi. 2, 
xv. 2, &c.; (ii) ‘to hold down,’ ‘hold in check’ 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 
where 70 xaréxov, 6 xatéxwv=the force of [Roman] Law and Order 
by which Antichrist is restrained: similarly here but in a bad 


42 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 18-20. 


sense; it is the truth which is ‘held down,’ hindered, thwarted, 
checked in its free and expansive operation. 

19. Sidr: always in Gk. Test. =‘ because.’ There are three uses : 
(i) for 8¢ 6 re = propter quod, guamobrem, ‘ wherefore,’ introducing 
a consequence; (ii) for da rovro drt = proplerea quod, OY guia, 
‘because,’ giving a reason for what has gone before; (iii) from 
Herod. downwards, but esp. in later Gk. = érz, ‘ that.’ 

76 yywotév. This is a similar case to that of evodwénoopna above : 
yvoores in Scripture generally (both LXX and N. T.) means as 
a rule ‘known’ (e.g. Acts i. 19, ii. 14, xv. 18, &c.); but it does 
not follow that it may not be used in the stricter sense of 
‘knowable,’ ‘what_m ’ (‘the intelligible nature’ 
T. H. Green, Zhe Witness of God, p. 4) where the context favours 
that sense: so Orig. Theoph. Weiss. Gif, against Chrys. Mey. 
De W. Va. There is the more room for this stricter use here 
as the word does not occur elsewhere in St. Paul and the induction 
does not cover his writings, 

é atrois, ‘within them.’ St. Paul repeatedly uses this preposi- 
tion where we might expect a different one (cf. Gal. i. 16; Rom. 
ii. 15): any revelation must pass through the human conscious- 
ness: so Mey. Go. Oltr. Lips., not exactly as Gif. (‘in their very 


nature and constitution as men’) or Moule (‘among them).’ 


Compare also Luther, Zad/e Talk, Aph. dxlix: ‘ Melanchthon discoursin 
with Luther touching the prophets, who continually boast thus: “‘ Thus sait 
the Lord,” asked whether God in person spoke with them or no. Luther 
replied: ‘‘ They were very holy, spiritual people, who seriously contemplated 
upon holy and divine things: therefore God spake with them in their 
consciences, which the prophets held as sure and certain revelations.”’s 

It is however possible that allowance should be made for the wider 
Hebraistic use of év, as in the phrase Aadeiv év ti (Habak. ii, 1 dmooKo- 
wevow Tov ldeiv rh AaAnoe év Evol: cf. Zech. i. 9,13, 14, 19; ti. 35 iv. 4.55 
v. 5, 10; vi. 4; also 4 Ezr. v. 15 angelus gut loguebatur in me. In that 
case too much stress must not be laid on the preposition as describing an 
internal process. At the same time the analogy of AaAciy év does not cover 
the very explicit gavepév éorw évy aitois: and we must remember that 
St. Panl is writing as one who had himself an ‘abundance of revelations’ 
(2 Cor. xii. 7), and uses the language which corresponded to his own 
experience. 


20. dé xticews xgopov. Gif. is inclined to translate this ‘from 
the created universe,’ ‘creation’ (in the sense of ‘things created’) 
being regarded as the source of knowledge:~he alleges Vulg. 
a creatura mundt. But it is not clear that Vulg. was intended 
to have this sense; and the parallel phrases am’ apyjs xéopov 
(Matt. xxiv. 21), dé xaraBodjs kécpou (Matt. xxv. 34; Luke xi. 50; 
Rev. xiii. 8; xvii. 8), am’ apyijs xricews (Mark x. 6; xiii. 19; 2 Pet. 
iii, 4), seem to show that the force of the prep. is rather emporal, 
‘since the creation of the universe’ (agp od xpovov 6 dpards exrioOn 
xdopos Euthym.-Zig.). The idea of knowledge being derived from 


I. 20.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 43 


the fabric of the created world is in any case contained in the 
context. 

xticews: see Lft. Col. p. 214. xriois has three senses: (i) the 
act of creating (as here); (ii) the result of that act, whethér (a) the 
aggregate of created things (Wisd. v. 18; xvi. 24; Col. i. 15 and 
probably Rom. viii. 19 ff.); or (8) a creature, a single created thing 
(Heb. iv. 13, and perhaps Rom. viii. 39, q. v.). 

xafopatat: commonly explained to mean ‘are clearly seen’ 
(xara with intensive force, as in kxatapavOdvew, katavoeiv); so Fri. 
Grm.-Thay. Gif. &c. It may however relate rather to the direction 
of sight, ‘are surveyed,’ ‘contemplated’ (‘are under observation’ 
Moule). Both senses are represented in the two places in which 
the word occurs in LXX: (i) in Job x. 4 7 Gamep Bporis bpG Kabopas ; 
(ii) in Num. xxiv. 2 Badadp ... xaopa tov “Iopand eotparomedevkdra 
cata duAdas. 

Gtdi0s: aidiérns is a Divine attribute in Wisd. ii. 23 (v. 1, see 
below); cf. also Wisd. vii. 26 gards diSiov, Jude 6. 

The argument from the nature of the created world to the 
character of its Author is as old as the Psalter, Job and Isaiah: 
Pscemixs 05 xciv. g+ exit. 5; Is. xii. 5; xlv. 18; Job xii. 9; 
XXVi. 14; xxxvi. 24 ff.; Wisd. ii. 23; xiii. 1,5, &c. It is common 
to Greek thought as well as Jewish: Arist. De Mundo 6 aéewpnros 
an’ aitav rév Epywv Oewpeira [6 Ocds| (Lid.). This argument is very 
fully set forth by Philo, De Praem. et Poen. 7 (Mang. ii. 415). 
After describing the order and beauty of Nature he goes on: 
‘ Admiring and being struck with amazement at these things, they 
arrived at a conception consistent with what they had seen, that 
all these beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come 
into being spontaneously (ov amavtouatiabcvra yeyovev), but are the 
work of some Maker, the Creator of the world, and that there must 
needs be a Providence (mpdvoav); because it is a law of nature 
that the Creative Power (ré memomnxés) must take care of that which 
has come into being. But these admirable men superior as they 
are to all others, as I said, advanced from below upwards as if 
by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His 
works by probable inference (oia did tevos ovpaviov khipaxos amd Tov 
Epyov eixdrt Aoytou@ oToxacduevor Tov Snpuovpydv). 

Gerdtns: Oedrys = Divine Personality, @<ér7s = Divine nature and 
properties: dvvauts is a single attribute, @ecdrns is a summary term 
for those other attributes which constitute Divinity: the word 
appears in Biblical Gk. first in Wisd. xviii. g rov tis Oeedrntos vdpor 
€y Gpovoia duébevto, 

Didymus (77in. ii. 11; Migne, P. G. xxxix. 664) accuses the heretics of 

reading @eé77s here, and it is found in one MS., P. 

It is certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as Oedrys should 


be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like 6vvays. To 
meet this difficulty the attempt has been made to narrow down Oeadz77s to 


44 EPISTLE 10 THE ROMANS [I. 20, 21 


the signification of 5éfa, the divine glory or splendour. It is suggested 
that this word was not used because it seemed inadequate to describe the 
uniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge, Die Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus 
von @. religios-sittl. Charakt. d. Heidentums, Leipzig, 1888, p. 10 f.) 


cis 75 elvar: e/s ré denotes here not direct and primary purpose 
but indirect, secondary or conditional purpose. God did not 
design that man should sin; but He did design that if they sinned 
they should be without excuse: on His part all was done to 
give them a sufficient knowledge of Himself. Burton however 
(Moods and Tenses, § 411) takes eis 16 here as expressing not 
purpose but result, because of the causal clause which follows. 
‘This clause could be forced to an expression of purpose only by 
supposing an ellipsis of some such expression as kat ovras <iciv, 
and seems therefore to require that eis rd eivae be interpreted as 
‘expressing result.’ There is force in this reasoning, though the use 
of eis rd for mere result is not we believe generally recognized. 

21. édfacav. d0éd¢w is one of the words which show a deepened 
s'gnificance in their religious and Biblical use. In classical Greek 
in accordance with the slighter sense of dda it merely = ‘ to form 
an opinion about’ (dogafdpevos ddixos, ‘held to be unrighteous,’ 
Plato, Rep. 588 B) ; then later with a gradual rise of signification 
‘to do honour to’ or ‘ praise’ (€7 dpery dedofacpevor avdpes Polyb. 
VI. liii. 10). And so in LXX and N.T. witha varying sense accord- 
ing to the subject to whom it is applied: (i) Of the honour done by 
man to man (Esth. iii. 1 eddéacev 6 Bacidedis “Apragépéns "Apav) ; 
(ii) Of that which is done by man to God (Lev. x. 3 év mdop 9 
avvaywy; dofacOycopat) ; (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man by God 
(Rom. viii. 30 obs 8€ Sicaiwoe, Tovrous Kai eddéace) ; (iv) In a sense 
specially characteristic of the Gospel of St. John, of the visible 
manifestation of the glory, whether of the Father by His own act 
(Jo. xii. 28), or of the Son by His own act (Jo. xi. 4), or of the Son 
by the act of the Father (Jo. vii. 39; xii. 16, 23, &c.), or of the 
Father by the Incarnate Son (Jo. xiii. 31; xiv. 13; xvii. 1, 4, &c.). 

€uaraidOycav, ‘were frustrated,’ ‘rendered futile.’ In LXX ra 
pdraa = ‘idols’ as ‘things of nought.’ The two words occur 
together in 2 Kings xvii. 15 «at émopev@noav dmicw ray pataiwy Kai 
epata.wOncav. 

Siadoyiopois: as usually in LXX and N. T. in a bad sense of 
‘ perverse, self-willed, redsonings or speculations’ (cf. Hatch, Zss. 
in Bibl. Gk. p. 8). 


Comp. Enoch xcix. 8, 9 ‘And they will become godless by reason of the 
foolishness of their hearts, and their eyes will be bliided through the fear of 
their hearts and through visions in their dreams. Through these they will 
become godless and fearful, because they work all their works in a lie and 
they worship a stone.’ 


xapdia ; the most comprehensive term for the human faculties 


I. 21-24.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 45 


the seat of feeling (Rom. ix. 2; x. 1); will (1 Cor. iv. 5; vii. 37; 
cf. Rom. xvi. 18); thoughts (Rom. x. 6, 8). Physically xapéia 
belongs to the omddyxva (2 Cor. vi. 11, 12); the conception of its 
functions being connected with the Jewish idea that life resided in 
the blood: morally it is neutral in its character, so that it may be 
either the home of lustful desires (Rom. i. 24), or of the Spirit 
(Rom. v. 5). 

28. 7\Aagav év: an imitation of a Heb. construction: cf. Ps. 
evi. (cv.) 20 ; also for the expression Jer. ii. 11 (Del. ad loc.) &c. 

Séfav = ‘manifested perfection.’ See on iii. 23. 


Comp. with this verse Philo, Vst. Mos. iii. 20 (Mang. ii. 161) of dv 
GAnO7 Ocdv KaTadirévTes Tos Wevdwvdpous <Onbmiovpynaay, pOapTais kat yevnrais 
ovoias THY TOD GyevnToU Kal dpOdaprou Tpoapya.y émpnyicaytes: also De Lbveet. 
28 (Mang. i. 374) map’ § wal OcomAaaTetv apgapevos dyahpatov Kai foavwy Kar 
GrAwv pupiwy apidpypatov sAais diapdpos TeTeXviTEvpevov KaTéeTANTE THV 
oikoupevnv . . . KaTepyacaro TO évaytiov ov mpoceddéxnoev, avti daLdTnTOS 
doéBevav—rd yap TodAUOeor ev Tais THY appovwy Wuyxats GOedTys, Kal Oeod Tipas 
GAoyovow of 7a OvnTa OewoavTes—ois ovK enpKeceV HAriov Kal GeAHYNS « 
elxdvas SiaTAdcacGat, GAd’ 759 Kal addyous (was Kal puTois THs Ta apdapray 
Tips peTedooay, 


24. wapédwxey: three times repeated, here, in ver. 26 and in 
ver.-28. These however do not mark so many distinct stages in 
the punishment of the heathen; it is all one stage. Idolatry leads 
to moral corruption which may take different forms, but in all is 
a proof of God’s displeasure. Gif. has proved that the force of 
napédaxev is not merely permisstve (Chrys. Theodrt. Euthym.-Zig.* ), 
through God permitting men to have their way; or privasive, 
through His withdrawing His gracious aid; but judzcza/, the appro- 
priate punishment of their defection: it works automatically, one 
evil leading to another by natural sequence. 


This is a Jewish doctrine: Pirgé Aboth, iv. 2 ‘ Every fulfilment of duty is 
rewarded by another, and every transgression is punished by another’; Shab- 
bath 104° ‘ Whosoever strives to keep himself pure receives the power to do 
so, and whosoever will be impure to him is it [the door of vice] thrown 
open’; Jerus. Talmud, ‘He who erects a fence round himself is fenced, and 
he who gives himself over is given over’ (from Delitzsch, Notes on Heb. 
Version of Ep. to Rom.). The Jews held that the heathen because of their 
rejection of the Law were wholly abandoned by God: the Holy Spirit was 
withdrawn from them (Weber, Adésyn. Theol. p. 66). 


év attots 8 A BCD*, several cursives; ¢v avrois DOEFGKLP, 
&c., printed editions of Fathers, Orig. Chrys. Theodrt., Vulg. (uf 
coniumelits adficiant corpora sua in zpsis). ‘The balance is strongly 


* Similarly Adrian, an Antiochene writer (c. 440 A.D.) in his Elcaywy? els 
tds Oeias ypadds, a classified collection of figures and modes of speech em- 
ployed in Holy Scripture, refers this verse to the head Ti éxt trav avOpwrivaw 
andy avyxXwpnow Tou @€od ws mpafiv avtov Acye* éwerd7) KwAVTAL duvapevos, 
ToUTO ov TALE. 


46 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 24-28, 


in favour of atrois. With this reading dripdfecbar is pass., and é 
avrois = ‘among them’: with ey éaurois, arp, is mid. (as Vulg.). 

On the forms, airod, aired and éavrod see Buttmann, Gr. of NV. T: Gk. (tr. 
Thayer) p. 111; Hort, /mtrod., Notes on Orthography. p. 144. 

In N. T. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of strong reflexive forms. 
Simple possession is most commonly expressed by a’rod, airfs, &c.: only 
where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely suum, but sussm 
tpsius) is éavrod used (hence the importance of such phrases as Tdv éavTov 
vidv mépas Rom. viii. 3). Some critics have denied the existence in the 
N. T. of the aspirated aivod : and it is true that there is no certain proof of 
aspiration (such as the occurrence before it of ovx or an elided preposition; 
in early MSS. breathings are rare), but in a few strong cases, where the 
omission of the aspirate would be against all Greek usage, it is retained by 
WH. (e.g. in Jo. ii. 24; Lk. xxiii. 12). 


25. oftwes: dors, often called ‘rel. of quality,’ (i) denotes 
a single object with reference to its kind, its nature, its capacities, 
its character (‘one who,’ ‘ being of such a kind as that”); and thus 
(ii) it frequently makes the adjectival sentence assign a cause for 
the main sentence: it is used like guz, or guippe guz, with subj. 

thy &dyferav... 7G Wedde: abstr. for concrete, for rév aAnOwor 
Ocdv.. . Tois Wevdecr Ocois, cf. 1 Thess. i. 9. 

éoeBdoOnoav. This use of ocBatecda is an dak Aeydpevor ;. the 
common form is o¢Bcoba (see Va.). 

mapa tov KticavtTa = not merely ‘ more than the Creator’ (a force 
which the preposition might bear), but ‘passing dy the Creator 
altogether,’ ‘to the neglect of the Creator.’ 


Cf. Philo, De Mund. Opif. 2 (Mangey, i. 2) ties yap Tov edcpov parror f 
roy kocporody Gavpdoayres (Loesner). 


&s éotw eddoyntés. Doxologies like this are of constant occurrence 
in the Talmud, and are a spontaneous expression of devout feeling 
called forth either by the thought of God’s adorable perfections or 
sometimes (as here) by the forced mention of that which reverence 
would rather hide. 

27. dmohapBdvovtes : drod.= (i) ‘to receive Jack’ (as in Luke vi. 
34); (ii) ‘to receive one’s due’ (as in Luke xxiii. 41); and so here. 

28. éSoxipacav: Soxipdtw = (i) ‘to test’ (1 Cor. iil, 13, &c.); 
(ii) ‘to approve after testing’ (so here; and ii. 18; xiv. 22, &€c.); 
simitarly addxporv = ‘rejected after testing,’ ‘ reprobates.’ 

& émyvdce: exiyvoos = ‘ after knowledge’: hence (i) recogni- 
tion (vb. = ‘to recognize,’ Matt. vii. 16; xvii. 12, &c.); (ii) ‘ad- 
vanced’ or ‘further knowledge,’ ‘full knowledge.’ See esp. Sp. 
Comm. on 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Lft. on Phil. i. 9. 

voiv = the reasoning faculty, esp. as concerned with moral 
action, the intellectual part of conscience: vovs and ovveidnois are 
combined in Tit. i. 15: vods may be either bad or good; for the 
good sense see Rom. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 23. 


I. 28-30.] | FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 47 


ta xa@yKovta: a technical term with the Stoics, ‘what is morally 
fitting’; cf. also 2 Macc. vi. 4. 

29. We must beware of attempting to force the catalogue 
which follows into a logical order, though here and there a certain 
amount of grouping is noticeable. The first four are general 
terms for wickedness ; then follows a group headed by the allitera- 
tive @@dvou, ddvov, with other kindred vices; then two forms of 
backbiting; then a group in descending climax of sins of arro- 
gance; then a somewhat miscellaneous assortment, in which again 
alliteration plays a part. 

&ixia : a comprehensive term, including all that follows. 

mopveia: om. NABCK; probably suggested by similarity in 
sound to movnpia. 

movnpia : contains the idea of ‘ aci#ve mischief’ (Hatch, Bid). Gk. 
p- 77f.; Trench, Sy. p. 303). Dr. T. K. Abbott (Zssays, p. 97) 
rather contests the assignment of this specific meaning to qovnpia ; 
and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide: but where 
definition is needed it is in this direction that it must be sought. 

kakia: aS compared with zovnpia denotes rather inward vicious- 
ness of disposition (Trench, Sy. p. 36 f.). 

The MSS. vary as to the order of the three words wornpig, mAcovefia, xaxig, 
WH. ¢fext RV. retain this order with BL, &c., Harcl. Arm., Bas. Greg.- 
Nyss. a/.: Tisch. WH. marg. read qovnp. xax. tAcov. with NA, Pesh. @/. : 
WH. marg. also recognizes kak. tovnp. mA€ov. with C, Boh. ai. 

arAcovetta. On the attempt which is sometimes made to give to this word 
the sense of ‘impurity’ see Lft. on Col. iii. 5. The word itself means only 
‘selfish greed,’ which may however be exhibited under circumstances where 
impurity lies near at hand: e.g. in 1 Thess. iv. 6 mAcovexreiy is used of 
adultery, but rather as a wrong done to another than as a vice. 


xakonOetas: the tendency to put the worst construction upon 
everything (Arist. 2hev. ii. 13; cf. Trench, Syz. p. 38). The word 
occurs several times in 3 and 4 Maccabees. 

30. wOupictds, katadddous. ‘The idea of secresy is contained in 
the first of these words, not in the second: 6. susurratores 
Cypr. Lucif. Ambrstr. susurrones Aug. Vulg.; «arad. detraciores 
Cypr. Aug. Vulg., detrectatores (detract-) Lucif. Ambrstr. ad. 

Qcootuyets : may be either (i) passive, Deo odzbiles Vulg.: so 
Mey. Weiss Fri. Oltr. Lips. Lid. ; on the ground that this is the 
constant meaning in class. Gk., where the word is not uncommon ; 
or (ii) active, Dez osores = abhorrentes Deo Cypr.: so Euthym.-Zig. 
(rods tov Gedy pcodvras), Tyn. and other English versions not derived 
from Vulg., also Gif. Go. Va., with some support from Clem. Rom. 
ad Cor. xxxv. 5, who in paraphrasing this passage uses Geoorvyia 
clearly with an active signification, though he follows it by orvynrek 
T@ Gg. AS one among a catalogue of vices this would give the 
more pointed sense, unless we might suppose that @coorvycis had 
come to have a meaning like our ‘desperadoes.’ The three terms 


48 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 30-32. 


which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts ef the Eliza- 
bethan stage. For the distinction between them see Trench, Syn. 
P- 95 ff. 


It is well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin, iniuriosi, superbi, factantes sus. 
For the last phrase Lucif. has g/oriantes ; either would be better than the 
common rendering é/atos (Cod. Clarom. Cod. Boern. Ambrstr. Aug. Vulg.). 


D 


tmepqpavos. Mayor (on Jas. iv. 6) derives this word from the adjectival 
form izepos (rather than iép Trench) and gaive, comparing édapnBdAos from 
€Aagos and Baddw: he explains it as meaning ‘ conspicuous beyond others,’ 
‘outshining them,’ and so ‘ proud,’ ‘haughty’: see his note, and the exx. 
there quoted from Ecclus. and Pss, So/. 

31. dovvérous: dovve.djrous (‘ without conscience’) Euthym.-Zig. How 
closely the two words ovveois and ouveidnais are related will appear from 
Polyb. XVIII. xxvi. 13 obdels obrws obre paprus éo7l poBepds obTE KaTHyopos 
dewds ds % advects 4 éyxaroiKovca Tais éxactov ywyais, [But is not this 
a gloss. on the text of Polyb.? It is found in the margin of Cod. Urbin.} 


" Rg ‘false to their engagements’ (cvvéjxat) ; cf. Jer. iii. 7, 

GonévSous after dorépyous (Trench, Syn. p. 95 ff.) is added 
from 2 Tim, iii. 3 [CK L P]. 

82. ottiwes : See on ver. 25 above. 

76 Sixaiwpa: prob. in the first instance (i) a declaration that 
a thing is dikatoy [ro dixai@pa Tod véuov = ‘ that which the Law lays 
down as right,’ Rom. viii. 4]; hence, ‘an ordinance’ (Luke i. 6 ; 
Rom. ii. 26; Heb. ix. 1, 10); or (ii) ‘a declaration that a person 
is dikas, ‘a verdict of not guilty,’ ‘an acquittal’: so esp. in 
St. Paul (e.g. Rom. v. 16). But see also note on p. 31. 


émyvovres : émywdoxovres (B) 80, WH. marg. 


moouow ... guveudsoxovor. There has been some disturbance of 
the text here: B, and apparently Clem. Rom., have mouodyres... 
avvevdoxorrtes ; and so too DE Vulg. (am. fuld.) Orig.-lat. Lucif. 
and other Latin Fathers, but inserting, non inétellexerunt (oix 
événoav D). WH. obelize the common text as prob. corrupt: they 
think that it involves an anticlimax, because to applaud an action 
in others is not so bad as to do it oneself; but from another point 
of view to set up a public opinion in favour of vice is worse than 
to yield for the moment to temptation (see the quotation from 
Apollinaris below). If the participles are wrong they have probably 
been assimilated mechanically to spdcoovres. Note that woueiy = 
Jacere, to produce:a certain result ; mpacoew = agere, to act as 
moral agent: there may be also some idea of repeated action. 

ouveudoxodct denotes ‘hearty approval’ (Rendall on Acts xxii. 
20, in Lxpos. 1888, ii. 209); cf. 1 Mace. i. 57 cuvevdoxet ro von@ ? 
the word occurs four times besides in N. T. (Luke, Epp. Paul.) 


dupdrepor 5 wovnpol, nat 5 xatapfas, kat 5 ovvdpaydw. ov 52 morei> 
7d guvevdokeiy xeipov Tidnot Kata 7d Acyopevov, el EOempers KAEDTYY, 


I. 18-32.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 49 


cuvérpexes ait. 5 pew yap roar, pebiaw TO 140e, Hrrara: THs mpafens* 
6 3& cvvevdoxGy, txrds dv Tov 7a8ovus, wovnpig xpwpevos, cuvtpéxe TH oKP 
(Apollinaris in Cramer’s Catena). 


St. Paul’s Description of the Condition of the 
Heathen World. 


It would be wrong to expect from St. Paul an investigation of 
the origin of different forms of idolatry or a comparison of the 
morality of heathen religions, such as is now being instituted in the 
Comparative Science of Religion. For this it was necessary to 
wait for a large and comprehensive collection of data which has 
only become possible within the present century and is still far from 
complete. "St. Paul looks at things with the insight of a religious 
teacher ; he describes facts which he sees around him; and he con- 
nects these facts with permanent tendencies of human nature and 
with principles which are apparent in the Providential government 
of the world/ 

The Jew of the Dispersion, with the Law of Moses in his hand, 
could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among 
the heathen. He turned with disgust from the circus and the 
theatre (Weber, Alisyn. Theol. pp. 58, 68). He looked upon the 
heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh, such as those 
which St. Paul recounts in this chapter. So far have they gone as 
to lose their humanity altogether and become like brute beasts 
(iced. p. 67 £.). The Jews were like a patient who was sick but 
with hope of recovery. Therefore they had a law given to them to 
be a check upon their actions. The Heathen were like a patient 
who was sick unto death and beyond all hope, on whom therefore 
the physician put no restrictions (zézd. p. 69). 

The Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard, and 
his verdict was not less sweeping. ‘The whole world,’ said St. 
John, ‘lieth in wickedness,’ rather perhaps, ‘in [the power of] the 
Wicked One’ (1 Jo. v. 19). And St. Paul on his travels must 
have come across much to justify the denunciations of this chapter. 
He saw that idolatry and licence went together. He knew that 
the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner 
of immoralities. The lax and easy-going anthropomorphism of 
Hellenic religion and the still more degraded representations, with 
at times still more degraded worship, of the gods of Egypt and the 


50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 18-32. 


East, were thrown into dark relief by his own severe conception of 
the Divine Holiness. It was natural that he should give the 
account he does of this degeneracy. The lawless fancies of men 
invented their own divinities. Such gods as these left them free to 
follow their own unbridled passions. And the Majesty on High, 
angered at their wilful disloyalty, did not interfere to check their 
downward career. 

It is all literally true. The human imagination, following its 
own devices, projects even into the Pantheon the streak of evil by 
which it is itself disfigured. And so the mischief is made worse, 
because the worshipper is not likely to rise above the objects of 
his worship. It was in the strict sense due to supernatural influ- 
ence that the religion of the Jew and of the Christian was kept 
clear of these corrupt and corrupting features. The state of the 
Pagan world betokened the absence, the suspension or with- 
holding, of such supernatural influence; and there was reason 
enough for the belief that it was judicially inflicted. 

At the same time, though in this passage, where St. Paul is 
measuring the religious forces in the world, he speaks without 
limitation or qualification, it is clear from other contexts that con- 
demnation of the insufficiency of Pagan creeds did not make him 
shut his eyes to the good that there might be in Pagan characters. 
In the next chapter he distinctly contemplates the case of Gentiles 
who being without law are a law unto themselves, and who find in 
their consciences a substitute for external law (ii, 14, 15). He 
frankly allows that the ‘ uncircumcision which is by nature’ put to 
shame the Jew with all his greater advantages (ii. 26-29). We 
therefore cannot say that @ priori reasoning or prejudice makes 
him untrue to facts. The Pagan world was not wholly bad. It 
had its scattered and broken lights, which the Apostle recognizes 
with the warmth of genuine sympathy. But there can be equally 
little doubt that the moral condition of Pagan civilization was such 
as abundantly to prove his main proposition, that Paganism was 
unequal to the task of reforming and regenerating mankind, 

There is a monograph on the subject, which however does not 
add much beyond what lies fairly upon the surface: Rogge, Ds 
Anschauungen d. Ap. Paulus von d, religios-sitilichen Charakter d. 
Hetdentums, Leipzig, 1888. 


I. 18-32.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 51 


Ifthe statements of St. Paul cannot be taken at once as supplying the place 
of scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religica, so 
neither can they be held to furnish data which can be utilized just as they 
stand by the historian. The standard which St. Paul applies is not that of 
the historian but of the preacher. He does not judge by the average level of 
moral attainment at different epochs but by the ideal standard of that which 
ought to be attained. A calm and dispassionate weighing of the facts, with 
due allowance for the nature of the authorities, will be found in Friedlander, 
Sittengeschichte Roms, Leipzig, 1869-1871. 


Ose of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter I. 


i. 18-32. In two places in Epist. to Romans, ch. i and ch. ix, there are 
clear indications of the use by the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom. Such 
indications are not wanting elsewhere, but we have thought it best to call 
attention to them especially at the points where they are most continuous and 
most striking. We begin by placing side by side the language of St. Paul 


and that of the earlier work by which it is illustrated. 


Romans. 
1. 20. va ydp dépata abrov amd eri- 
oeus ov Tos Wanpacs yoovpeva 
eafoparas, 


§ re ditos atrov 3évayus cal Gadéras 


els rd elvas abrovs dvarodoyhrows" 


a1. tparambnoay ty trois diadroyto- 
pois aitay, cat écxotic6n 4 dciveros 
@uTov Kapiia. 


22. packovres elvas copol éyapay- 
@ncay" 


23. wat fAAafay ri 8éfay Tod d= 
Gaprov cov év Spowpari cixdvos Pbap- 
Tov dvOpamov kat wereway wal TeTpa- 
woder wal ipzerar. 


© The more recent editors as a rule 
read id:é7n7os with the uncials and 
Gen. i. 26f.; but it is byno means clear 
that they are right: Cod. 248 em- 
bodies very ancient elements and the 
context generally favours dii:67770s. 
Tt still would not be certain that St. 


Wisdom. 

xiii, 1. xat éx tTdv épwpévow d-yabav 
ov icxvoay «idéva: Tov GvrTa ovTE TOs 
épyos +mposéxovTes énéyvuoay Tov 
TEXViTHV. 

xiii. 5. é« yap peyéOous xal xadAovijs 
eTicpaTov avaddéyas 6 yeveoioupyds 
auTay Oewpeira. 

ii. 23. [6 cds Exrice . . . TOV GvOpa- 
wov ... elxova THs ldias aidioTnTOs * 
(Cod. 248 a/., Method. Athan. Epiph. ; 
l&iéry70s NAB, Clem.-Alex. &c.) 
ézoincev. | 

XViii. 9. Td THs GetdTHTOS vdpov. 

xiii. 8. mdduv 58 od’ adrol cuvyve- 
oroi. 

xii. 1. parao: yap révres GvOpwran 
gucea, ois mapyy Gov ayvwcia F. 


xii. 24. wal yap rev tAdyns ddav 
uaxpotepoy éwAarvnOncay Geovs Yrodap- 
Bavovtes 7a kal ey (dois TOY exOpav 
Gtipa, vntiav dixny adpdvav Yevaler- 
TES. 

xii. 1. 70 dp@aprév cov mredya, 

xiv. 8. 70 5& p@aprdy cds wrvopd- 
o6n. 

Xili. 10. Tadaimepo: 5é xa} év vexpois 
al éAmides aitay, oitwes Eéxadecay 
Geovs Epya xeipav avOpwmav. 


Paul had this passage in his mind. 

+ The parallel here is not quite 
exact. St. Paul says, ‘They did know 
but relinquished their knowledge,’ 
Wisd. ‘They ought to have known 
but did not.’ 


52 


25. olrwes perhrdafay ry ddAnbecay 
Tov Qcov ev TH Wevder, wal EceBdabne 
cav kat tdAdrpevoay ry wtices mapa Toy 
nricavTa, 


24. &0 rapédonev we. 7. A. 
26. dd TovTo mapébaxey «, 7. A. 


29. mewAnpmpévous méon Adinia, go- 
vnpia, TAcovetia, kakia, peaTovs pOdvov, 
gévou, Epidos, 5dAov, KaxonGeias, YrOv- 
ptoras, kataddAous, Beootvycis, vBpi- 
atds, UTepnpavous, ddatévas, epevperas 
KaKQv, ‘yovevow amebeis, douveTous, 
douvOérous, dorépyous, ave enpovas. 


EPISTLE T2 THE ROMANS 


[I. 18-82. 


xiii. 13, 14. daefxacery abrd elxim 
dvepunov, h (om rut ebreAt dpolwoer 
aité. 


xiii. 17 sqq. ob« aloxivera: 7G 
abixy appear wal mept piv Spiele 
70 doGeves émmadetrar, wept 3& (was rd 
vepov afiot «.%. A. 

xiv. II, 3d rodro wat by dddAas 
&Ovav émoxom) écrat, bre & erigpan 
@cod els BSéAvypa eyernOncay. 

xiv. 21. 70 dxowdvyrov dvopa Albos 
wal {vAots Trepébecav, 

xiv. 12, dpi) yap topyeast entvow 
ddwrwv, eipecas 52 abrav POopa Carfjs. 

xiv. 16. elra év xpévy xparuvber 13 
daeBes Bos ws vépos EpvdAaxOn. 

xiv. 22. e7’ ob« ijpeece 7d whavG: 
o6at wept 72 Tov cod ywaouw, GdXa wal 
éy peyarm (aves dyvolas wodkéum Ta 
TogaiTa Kaka eipnvnv mpocayopevovaty, 
23. i) yap rexvopdvous TereTAs H KpUgia 
puoTnpia t éupaveis efddrAcw Oeopav 
aupous ayovres, 24. ore Blovs obre 
yapous kabapods Em puddaoovaw, Ere- 
pos 5’ €repov f} Aoxay dvaipel f vobctbaw 
dduva. 

25. mavra S52 émplt Exer alya xal 
pédvos Krom?) Kal d6A0s, POopd, amortia, 
Tadpaxos, émopkia, OdpuyBos ayabav, 
26. xdpitos duynoia, yuxav puacpés, 
yevécews (sex) évadAayn, yapow arafia, 
poxeia kai aoérAyera. 


a7.) yap tav dvovipow «idwrow 


Opnoxela wavTds dpxi) Kakod wal airla’ 
wal mépas éativ. 


It will be seen that while on the one hand there can be no question of 


direct quotation, on the other hand the resemblance is so strong both as to 
the main lines of the argument (i, Natural religion discarded, ii. idolatry, 
fii. catalogue of immorality) and in the details of thought and to some 
extent of expression as to make it clear that at some time in his life St. Paul 
must have bestowed upon the Book of Wisdom a considerable amount of 
study. 

{Compare the note on ix. 19-29 below, also an essay by E, Grafe in 
Theol. Abhandlungen C. von Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg i. B. 1892, 
p- 251 ff. In this essay will be found a summary of previous discussions of 
the question and an estimate of the extent of St. Paul’s indebtedness which 
agrees substantially with that expressed above. It did not extend to any of 
the leading ideas of Christianity, and affected the form rather than the 
matter of the arguments to which it did extend. Rom. i, 18-32, ix. 19-23 
are the most conspicuous examples. ] 


t A.V. expands this as ‘ [spiritual] 
fornication’; and so most moderns, 
But even so the phrse might have 


had something to do in suggesting the 
thought of St. Paul. 


II. 1-16.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 53 


TRANSITION FROM GENTILE TO JEW. BOTH 
ALIKE GUILTY. 


II. 1-16. This siate of things puts out of court the | Fewish] 
critic who is himself no better than the Gentile. He can 
claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by im- 
penitence (vv.1-5). Strict justice will be meted out to all— 
the Few coming first then the Gentile (vv.6-11). The Few, 
will be judged by the Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law 
of Conscience, at the Great Assize whith Christ will hold 
(vv. 12-16). 


The Gentile sinner is without excuse; and his critic—who- 
ever he may be—is equally without excuse, even though [like 
the Jew] he imagines himself to be on a platform of lofty superiority. 
No such platform really exists. In fact the critic only passes 
sentence upon himself, for by the fact of his criticism he shows that 
he can distinguish accurately between right and wrong, and his 
own conduct is identical with that which he condemns. * And we 
are aware that it is at his conduct that God will look. The 
standard of His judgement is reality, and not a man’s birth or 
status as either Jew or Gentile. *Do you suppose—you Jewish 
critic, who are so ready to sit in judgement on those who copy your 
own example—do you suppose that a special exemption will be 
made in your favour, and that you personally (od emphatic) will 
escape? ‘Or are you presuming upon all that abundant goodness, 
forbearance, and patience with which God delays His punishment 
‘ ofsin? If so, you make a great mistake. The object of that long- 
suffering is not that you may evade punishment but only to induce 
you to repent. *° While you with that callous impenitent heart of 
yours are heaping up arrears of Wrath, which will burst upon you 
in the Day of Wrath, when God will stand revealed in His character 
as the Righteous Judge. * The principle of His judgement is clear 
and simple. He will render to every man his due, by no fictitious 
standard (such as birth or status) but strictly according to what 
he has done. *To those who by steady persistence in a life-work 
of good strive for the deathless glories of the Messianic Kingdom, 


54 £PISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


He will give that for which they strive, viz. eternal life. %But 
to those mutinous spirits who are disloyal to the right and loyal 
only to unrighteousness, for such there is in store anger and 
fury, *galling, nay crushing, pain: for every human being they 
are in store, who carries out to the end his course of evil, whether 
he be Jew or whether he be Gentile—the Jew again having prece- 
dence. *°On the other hand the communicated glory of the Divine 
Presence, the approval of God and the bliss of reconciliation with 
Him await the man who labours on at that which is good—be he 
Jew or Gentile; here too the Jew having precedence, but only 
precedence : ™ for God regards no distinctions of race. 

* Do not object that the Jew has a position of privilege which 
will exempt him from this judgement, while the Gentile has no law 
by which he can be judged. The Gentiles, it is true, have no law; 
but as they have sinned, so also will they be punished without one 
[see vv. 14,15]. The Jews live under a law, and by that law they 
will be judged. “For it is not enough to hear it read in the 
synagogues. That does not make a man righteous before God. 
His verdict will pronounce righteous only those who have done 
what the Law commands. *™I say that Gentiles too, although 
they have no written law, will be judged. For whenever any of 
them instinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law, their 
own moral sense supplies them with the law they need. ™ Be- 
cause their actions give visible proof of commandments written not 
on stone but on the tables of the heart. These actions themselves 
bear witness to them; and an approving conscience also bears 
them witness ; while in their dealings with one another their inward 
thoughts take sometimes the side of the prosecution and some- 
times (but more rarely) of the defence. ™ These hidden workings 
of the conscience God can see; and therefore He will judge 
Gentile as well as Jew, at that Great Assize which I teach that He 
will hold through His Deputy, Jesus Messiah. 

1. The transition from Gentile to Jew is conducted with much 
rhetorical skill, somewhat after the manner of Nathan’s parable 
to David. Under cover of a general statement St. Paul sets be- 
fore himself a typical Jew. Such an one would assent cordially 
to all that had been said hitherto (p. 49, suf.). It is now turned 
against himself, though for the moment the Apostle holds im 
suspense the direct affirmation, ‘Thou art the man,’ 


EE: 1-4.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 55 


There is evidence that Marcion kept vv. 2, 12-14, 16, 20 (from €xovra)—29; 
for the rest evidence fails. We might suppose that Marcion would omit vv. 
17-20, which record (however ironically) the privileges of the Jew; but the 
retention of the last clause of ver. 20 is against this. 


8:6 links this section closely to the last; it is well led up to by 
i. 32, but avaroX. pointing back to i. 20 shows that the Apostle had 
more than this in his mind. 


2. ofauev 8€ ABD &c., Harcl., Orig.-lat. Tert. Ambrstr. Theodrt. ai 
WH. “ext RV. “ext : of8ayey yao NC 17 al. pauc. Latt. (exc. g) Boh. Arm., 
Chrys., Tisch. WH. marg. RV. marg. An even balance of authorities, 
both sides drawing their evidence from varied quarters. A more positive 
decision than that of WH. RV. would hardly be justified. 


otdapev: ofa =to know for a fact, by external testimony; 
ytyyocko = to know by inner personal experience and appro- 
priation: see Sp. Comm. iii. 299; Additional note on 1 Cor. viii. 1. 

8. oJ emphatic; ‘thou, of all men.’ There is abundant illus- 
tration of the view current among the Jews that the Israelite was 
secure simply as such by virtue of his descent from Abraham and 
of his possession of the Law: cf. Matt. iii. 8,9 ‘ Think not to say 
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father’; Jo. viii. 33 ; 
Gal. ii. 15; the passages quoted by Gif.; Weber, Alfsyn. Theol. 
p. 69 f. 

There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is 
certainly an element of inconsistency, in some of these passages. 
The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing 
to turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair 
specimen of the teaching of the Rabbis, for we know that they in- 
sisted strenuously on the performance of the precepts of the Law, 
moral as well as ceremonial. But in any case there must have 
been a strong tendency to rest on supposed religious privileges 
apart from the attempt to make practice conform to them. 

4. xpyotémtos: donifatis Vulg., in Tit. ili. 4 denignifas: see 
Lft. on Gal. v. 22. xpyordérs = ‘kindly disposition’; paxpobupia 
= ‘patience,’ opp. to 6fvvzia a ‘short’ or ‘ quick temper,’ ‘ irasci- 
bility’ (cf. Bpadis cis dpynv Jas. i. 19); avoxn = ‘ forbearance,’ 
‘delay of punishment,’ cf. dvéyoua to hold one’s hand. 

Comp. Philo, Leg. Allegor. i. 13 (Mang. i. 50) “O7ay ydp &p pew ward 
Oardrrns, myyas St ey Tvis épnuotaros éropBph .. . Ti ErEpov wapioryow # 
tiv itepBodny Tov Te TAOUTOU Kai THS GyabdTHTOS abTOD; 

With paxpobvupias comp. a graphic image in Afoc. Baruch. xii. 4 Evigi- 
labit contra te furor qui nunc tw longanimitate tanguam in frenis reti- 
melur. 
aiso a monograph by Grafe, Die paulinische Lehre von Gesetz, Freiburg i. 
B. 1884, ed. 2, 1893. Dr. Grafe goes rather too far in denying the dis- 
tinction between véuos and 6 voyos, but his paser contains many just re- 
marks and criticisms. 


22. dvéuwsg. The heathen are represented ac deliberately rejects 


56 EPISTLE TO SHE ROMANS 


quidem donare vult pro exigere ; et multae misericordiae,quoniam mut- 
tiplicat magis misericordias his qui praesentes sunt et qui praeterierunt et 
qui futurt sunt: st enim non multiplicaverit, non vivificabitur saeculun 
cum his qui inhabitant in eo, et donator, quoniam si non donaverit de 
bonitate sua ut alleventur hi qui iniquitatem fecerunt de suis iniguitati- 
bus, non poterit dectes millesima pars vivificart hominum. 

Katagpoveis; ct. Apfoc. Buruch. xxi. 20 Jnnotescat potentia tua sllis gud 
putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem. 


eis petdvoidy oe Gyer: its purpose or tendency is to induce you 
to repent. 


‘ The Conative Present is merely a species of the Progressive Present. A 
verb which of itself suggests effort when used in a tense which implies action 
in progress, and hence incomplete, naturally suggests the idea of attempt” 
(Burton, § 11). 

‘According to R. Levi the words [Joel ii. 13] mean: God removes to 
a distance His Wrath. Like a king who had two fierce legions. If these, 
thought he, encamp near me in the country they will rise against my subjects 
when they provoke me to anger. Therefore [{ will send them far away. 
Then if my subjects provoke me to anger before I send for them (the legions) 
they may appease me and I shall be willing to be appeased. So also said 
God; Anger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. I will send them 
far awav to a distance, so that when the Israelites provoke Me to anger, they 
may come, before I send for them, and repent, and I may accept their 
repentance (cf. Is. xiii. 5). And not only that, said R. Jizchak, but he 
locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way; see Jer. 1. 25, which 
means: Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man 
returns to God and He accepts him’ (7ract. (haanstth ii. 1 ap. Winter wa 
Wiinsche, Jzd. Litt. i. 207). 


5. xatdé: ‘in accordance with,’ secundum duritiam tuam Vulg. 

épynv : see on i. 18 above, 

opy?v év *pépa Spyijs: to be taken closely together, ‘ wrath (to 
be inflicted) in a day of wrath.’ 


The doctrine of a ‘day of the Lord’ as a day of judgement is taught by 
the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos v. 18 ; Is. ii. 12 ff.; xiii. 6 ff.; xxiv. 
a1; Jer.xlvi. 10; Joel ii. 1 ff.; Zeph.i. 7 ff.; Ezek. vii. 7 ff.; xxx. 3 ff.; Zech. 
xiv. 1; Mal. iii. a; iv. 1. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic 
literature: Exoch xlv. a ff. (and the passages collected in Charles’ Note) ; 
Ps. Sol. xv. 13 ff.; 4 Ezr. vi. 18 ff., 77 ff. [vii. 102 ff. ed. Bensly]; xii. 34; 
Apoc. Baruch. li. 1; lv. 6, &e. 


Sixaroxpioias: not quite the same as dieaias xpicews 2 Thess. i. 5 
(cf. justi judicix Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the 
judgement as the character of the Judge (d:xasoxpurms 2 Macc. xii. 
41; Cf. 6 dixacos xpirns 2 Tim. iv. 8). 

The word occurs in the Quinta (the fifth version included in Origen’s 

Hexapla) of Hos. vi. 5; it is also found twice in Zest. XJ/ Patriarch. Levi 3 

6 devtepos Exet wp, xidva, epvoTaddAor Erotpya els Hucpay mpoorayparos Kupiov 


ty rH Sikaoxpisig Tov Ocod. Lbid. 15 Anpecbe dvedicpudv Kal aloxuvqy alanioy 
wapa THs dikasokpicias Tov Oeov. 


6. 85 dmoddce.: Prov. xxiv. 12 (LXX). The principle here laid 
down, though im full accord with the teaching of the N. T. 


IL. 6-9.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 57 


generally (Matt. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8; 
Col. iii. 24, 25; Rev. ii. 23; xx. 12; xxii. 12), may seem at first 
sight to conflict with St. Paul’s doctrine of Justification by Faith. 
But Justification is a past act, resulting in a present State: it 
belongs properly to the beginning, not to the end, of the Christian’s 
career (see on dixatwOjcovra in ver. 13). Observe too that.there is 
no real antithesis between Faith and Works in themselves. \Works b 
are the evidence of Faith, and Faith has its necessary outcome in 
Works. The true antithesis is between, earning salvation and 
receiving it as a gift of God’s bounty./ St. Paul himself would 
have allowed that there might have been a question of earning 
salvation if the Law were really kept (Rom. x. 5; Gal. iii. 12). 
But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept, the works were not 
done. 

7. «a0 Gropovivy Epyou dyaod: collective use of épyor, as in 
ver, 15, ‘a lifework,’ the sum of a man’s actions. 

8. tots Sé ef épifetas: ‘those whose motive is factiousness,’ opp. 
to the spirit of single-minded unquestioning obedience, those who 
use all the arts of unscrupulous faction to contest or evade com- 
mands which they ought to obey. From ép:6os ‘a hired labourer’ 
we get ¢epOevw ‘to act as a hireling,’ ¢prevouae a political term 
for ‘hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit:’ hence 
€p:6cia = the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious 
opposition for the willing obedience of loyal subjects of the king- 
’ dom of heaven. See Lft., and Ell. on Gal. v. 20, but esp. Fri. 
ad loc. 


The ancients were strangely at sea about this word. Hesychius (cent. 5) 
derived ép:6os from épa ‘earth’; the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation 
perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from épa 
Ons agricola mercede conductus; Greg. Nyssen. connects it with épov ‘ wool’ 
(€pt@0s was used specially of woolworkers) ; but most common of all is the 
connexion with éps (so Theodrt. on Phil. ii. 3; cf. Vulg. Azs gud ex con- 
tentione | per contentionem Phil. ii. 3; réxae Gal. v.20]). There can be 
little doubt that the use of ép:@eia was affected by association with ép:s, 
thongh there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on 
érapwOnoay xi. 7, kaTavigews xi. 8). 


dpy) ... Oupds : see Lft. and Ell. on Gal. v. 20; Trench, Syn. 


Pp. 125: dpy7 is the settled feeling, 6vydés the outward manifestation, 
‘outbursts’ or ‘ ebullitions of wrath.’ 


Spy) 5é éorw 5 éxopevos trois auaptavovow ent ripwpia révos. Guydy Se 
bpifovra: dpyiy dvabvpimpevnv Kat diocdaivoveay Orig. (in Cramer’s Catena). 


®. Otis kal orevoxwpia: /r72bulatio ( pressura in the African form 
of the Old Latin) e# angusi/ia Vulg., whence our word ‘ anguish’: 
areroxepia is the stronger word=*‘ torturing confinement’ (cf. 2 Cor. 
iv. 8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage: 
calamitas ef angustiae h.e. summa calamitas Fri. p. 100. 


58 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 9-12. 


For similar combinations (‘day of tribulation and pain,’ ‘of tribulation 
and great shame,’ ‘of suffering and tribulation,’ ‘of anguish and affliction,’ 8c.) 
see Charles’ note on Enoch xlv. 2. 


katepyaLonévou = ‘carry to the end’; «ara either strengthening 
the force of the simple vb., as ger in perficere, or giving ‘t a bad 
sense, as in perpelrare Fri. p. 107. 

11. mpoowroAnpia: peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek 
(Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25; Jas. ii. 1; cf. mpoowrodnmrns Acts x. 34; 
mpotwmodnnrev Jas. ii. 9; dmpoowmoknmras I Pet. i. 17): mpéc@moy 
AupBdvew = (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or suitor 
(Lev. xix. 15); and hence (ii) to show partiality, give corrupt judge- 
ment. In N.T. always with a bad sense. 


The idea goes back to Deut. x. 17 6 @eds... ov Oavuater mpdowmov ovd' 
ob pi) AdBy Sdpov, which is adopted in Ps. Sol. ii. 19 6 @eds xpiTAs Sinasos wal 
ov Oavpace: mpdowmov, and explained in Judzlces v. 15 ‘And He is not one 
who will regard the person (of any) nor receive gifts; when He says that He 
will execute judgement on each: if one gave him everything that is on the 
earth, He will not regard the gifts or the person (of any), nor accept any- 
thing at his hands, for he is a Righteous Judge’; cf. Apoc. Barsch. xiii. 7, 
Pirgé Aboth iv, 31 ‘He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity, 
nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons, nor taking of a bribe,’ 


12,13. vépos and 6 vopos. The distinction between these two forms did 
not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Rom. iii. a1 reads 
thus in Rufinus’ translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 201): Morés est apud 
Graecos nomintbus appa pracponi, quae apud nos possunt articuli nominarz. 
Si quando igitur Mosis legem nominat, solitum nomini praemittit articulum: 
58 guando vero naturalem vult intelligi, sine articulo nominat legem. This 
distinction however, though it holds good generally, does not cover all the 
cases. There are really three main uses: (1) 6 véuos = the Law of Moses; 
the art. denotes something with which the readers are familiar, ‘their own 
Jaw, which Christians in some sense inherited from the Jews through the O. T. 
(2) vépos = law in general (e.g. ii. 12, 14; iii. 20 f.; iv. 15; v. 13,-&c.). (3) But 
there is yet a third usage where véyos without art. really means the Law of 
Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding from 
Moses, but in its quality as Jaw; non quia Mosis sed quia lex as Gif. expresses 
it in his comment on Gal. ii. 19 (p. 46). St. Paul regards the Pre-Messianic 
period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew and for Gentile. Hence 
when he wishes to bring out this he uses véuos without art. even where he is 
referring to the Jews; because his main point is that they were under 
‘a legal system ’—who gave it and what name it bore was a secondary con- 
sideration. The Law of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of 
things that was universal. This will explain passages like Rom. v. a0, x. 4. 

There will remain a few places, which do not come under any of these 
heads, where the absence of the art. is accounted for by the influence of the 
context, usually acting through the law of grammatical sympathy by which 
when one word in a phrase drops the article another also drops it; some of 
these passages involve rather nice points of scholarship (see the notes on 
ii. 25; iii. 31; xiii. 8). On the whole subject compare esp. Gif. p. 47 ff. : 

The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine 
attributes: 4 Ezr. vii. 62-68 (132-138) Scio, Domine, guoniam (=6tt ‘ that’) 
nune vocatus est Altissimus misericors, in eo quod misereatur his gui non- 
dum in saeculo advenerunt ; et miserator in eo quod miseratur illis qui 
conversionemfaciunt in lege eius ; et longanimis, guoniam longanimitatem 
proestat his gui peccaverunt quasi suis operibus ; et munificus, quoniam 


TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 50 


ing not only the Law of Moses but even the Noachic ordinances. 
Thus they have become enemies of God and as such are doomed 
to destruction (Weber, A/tsyx. Theol. p. 65). 


jpaprov. Burton (§ 54) calls this a ‘collective Aorist,’ represented in 
English by the Perfect. ‘ From the point of view from which the Apostle 
is speaking, the sin of each offender is simply a past fact, and the sin of 
all a series or aggregate of facts together, constituting a past fact. But 
inasmuch as this series is not separated from the time of speaking we must 
as in iii. 23 employ an English Perfect in translation.’ Prof. Burton 
suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. may be frolepiic, as if it 
were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which 
will then be past ; but the parallels of iii. 23, v. 12 are against this. 


13. ot dkpoatai vopnou: ef. xarnxovpevos éx Tov véuov ver. 18; also Pereg 
R. Meir 6 (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. Taylor, p. 115) ‘Thorah is 
acquired . .. by learning, by a listening ear,’ &c. It is interesting to note 
that among the sayings ascribed to Simeon, very possibly St. Paul’s own 
class-mate and son of Gamaliel his teacher, is this: ‘not learning but doing 
is the groundwork; and whoso multiplies words occasions sin’ (Pirgé Aboth. 
i. 18, ed. Taylor; reff. from Delitzsch). 

vopou size artic. bis SABDG. The absence of the art. again (as in the 
last verse) generalizes the form of statement, ‘the hearers and the doers of 
law’ (whatever that law may be); ef. vii. 1. 


StkarwOjoovrat. The word is used here in its universal sense of 
‘a judicial verdict,’ but the fut. tense throws forward that verdict 
to the Final Judgement. This use must be distinguished from 
that which has been explained above (p. 30f.), the special or, so to 
speak, technical use of the term Justification which is characteristic 
of St. Paul. It is not that the word has any different sense but 
that it is referred to the past rather than to the future (S:cawOévres 
aor. cf. v. 1, 9); the acquittal there dates from the moment at 
which the man becomes a Christian; it marks the initial step in 
his career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were 
righteous. See on ver. 6 above. 

14, €0vn: ra €6vn would mean all or most Gentiles, v7 means 
only some Gentiles ; the number is quite indefinite, the prominent 
point being their character as Gentiles. 


Cf. 4 Ezr. iii. 36 homines quidem per nomina imvenies servasse mandata 
tua, gentes autem non invenies. 


Ta pi vopov €xovta, the force of wy is ‘ who ex hypothes? have not 
a law,’ whom we conceive of as not having a Jaw; cf. ra yi) dvra 
1 Cor. i. 28 (guae pro nthilo habeniur Grimm). 

€autots eiot vopos: bi legis impletio, 1b1 lex P. Ewald. 


The doctrine of this verse. was liberal doctrine for a Jew. The Talmud 


Tecognizes no merit in the good deeds of heathen unless they are accompanied © 


by a definite wish for admission to the privileges of Judaism. Even if 
a heathen were to keep the whole law it would avail him nothing without 
circumcision (Debarim Rabba 1). If he prays to Jehovah his prayer is not 


60 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 14, 15. 


heard (#57d.). If he commits sin and repents, that too does not help him 
(Pestkta 156°). Even for his alms he gets no credit (Pesikta 12>). ‘In 
their books’ (i.e. in those in which God sets down the actions of the 
heathen) ‘there is no desert’ (Shzr Rabba 86°). See Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 
p- 66f. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same 
effect. Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison, Essays. 
ii. 61. ‘In accordance with this view they interpreted the passages in 
St. Paul which speak of the religion of the heathen; e.g. Rom. ii. 14. 
Since the time of Augustine (De Spir. ef Zit. § 27) the orthodox interpreta- 
tion had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, or to the favoured 
few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. The 
Protestant expositors, to whom the words “‘ do by nature the things contained 
in the law” could never bear their literal force, sedulously preserved the 
Augustinian explanation, Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to 
gloss the phrase ‘‘ by nature,” thus: “ By fears and secret opinions which the 
Spirit of God, who is never wanting to men in things necessary, was pleased 
to put into the hearts of men” (Duct. Dudit. Book II. ch. 1, § 3). The 
rationalists, however, find the expression “ by nature,” in its literal sense, 
exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins {1614-1672}, Of Wat. 
Rel. IL. c. 9), and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness of those 
works, and the salvation of those who do them. Burnet, on Art. XVIIL., 
in his usual confused style of eclecticism, suggests both opinions without 
seeming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of 
doctrine.’ 


15. ottwes: see oni. 25. 

évdeikvuytar: évdefs implies an appeal to facts; demonstratto 
rebus gestis facta (P. Ewald, De Vocis Suvedjcews, &c., p. 16 N.). 

16 Epyov tod vopou: ‘the work, course of conduct belonging to’ 
(i.e. in this context ‘required by’ or ‘in accordance with ’) ‘the 
Law’: collective use of épyov as in ver. 7 above. 


[Probably not as Ewald of. ct. p. 17 after Grotius, opus legis est td, quoa 
lex in Judaezs efficet, nempe cognitio lictti et illicit. ] 


Cuppaptupovens attav THs cuvetSycews. This phrase is almost 
exactly repeated in ch. ix. £ cuppapr. poe tas cuved. pov. In both 
cases the conscience is separated from the self and personified as 
a further witness standing over against it. Here the quality of the 
acts themselves is one witness, and the approving judgement passed 
upon them by the conscience is another concurrent witness. 


ovvednoews. Some such distinction as this is suggested by the original 
meaning and use of the word auveidnars, which = ‘ co-knowledge,’ the know- 
ledge cr reflective judgement which a man has dy the side of or im conjunction 
with the original consciousness of the act. This second consciousness is easily 
projected and personified as confronting the first. 

The word is quoted twice from Menander (342-291 B.C.), Monost. 597 
(cf. 654) dwaow jpiv 4 ovveiSnots Beds (ed. Didot, pp. 101,103). It is sig- 
nificant that both the word and the idea are completely absent from Aristotle. 
They rise into philosophical importance in the more introspective moral 
teaching of the Stoics. The two forms, 76 cuve:dos and 7% ouveiinois appear 
to be practically convertible. Epictetus (Aragm. 97) compares the con- 
science to a ma:daywyds in a passage which is closely parallel to the comment 
of Origen on this verse of Ep. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, wi. 107) spirdfas . . 


II. 15.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 61 


welut paedagogus et (sc. antmae] quidam soctatus et rector ut eam de meliorivus 
moneat vel de culpis castiget et arguat. 

In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its full sense in Wisd. xvii. ro. 
11] det 5& mpocetAnpe TA xadena [movnpia] suvexopevyn TH ovverdjoe. In 
hilo 78 auvedds is the form used. In N. T. the word is mainly Pauline 

occurring in the speeches of Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16; Rom. 1 and 2 Cor., 
Past. Epp., also in Heb.) ; elsewhere only in 1 Pet. and the perze. adult. 
John viii. 9. It is one of the few technical terms in St. Paul which seem to 
have Greek rather than Jewish affinities. 

The ‘Conscience’ of St. Panl is a natural faculty which belongs to all 
men alike (Rom. ii. 15), and pronounces upon the character of actions, both 
their own (2 Cor. i. 12) and those of others (2 Cor. iv. 2, v.11). It can be 
over-scrupulous (1 Cor. x. 25), but is blunted or ‘seared’ by neglect of its 
warnings (1 Tim. iv. 2). 

The usage of St. Paul corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic con- 
temporaries, but is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in 
modern times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which passed 
judgment upon actions after they were done (in technical language the con- 
Scientia consequens moralis), not so much the general source of moral 
obligation. In the passage before us St. Paul speaks of such a source 
(éaurots eiot vyduos); but the law in question is rather generalized from the 
dictates of conscience than antecedent to them. See on the whole subject 
a treatise by Dr. P. Ewald, De Vocts Suveadnoeas apud script. N. J. vé ac 
potestate (Lipsiae, 1883). 


perag’ &\\ndwv. This clause is taken in two ways: (i) of the 
‘thoughts,’ as it were, personified, Conscience being in debate 
with itself, and arguments arising now on the one side, and now on 
the other (cf. Shakspeare’s ‘ When to the sessions of sweet silent 
thought, I summon up remembrance of things past’); in this case 
peraé) a\An\ov almost = ‘alternately,’ ‘in mutual debate’; (ii) 
taking the previous part of the verse as referring to the decisions 
of Conscience when in private it passes in review a man’s own 
acts, and this latter clause as dealing rather with its judgements on 
-the acts of the others; then pera&d dAAndAwy will = ‘between one 
another, ‘between man and man,’ ‘in the intercourse of man 
with man’; and Aoyopaev will be the ‘arguments’ which now 
take one side and now the other. The principal argument in 
favour of this view (which is that of Mey. Gif. Lips.) is the em- 
phatic position of pera aAndwv, which suggests a contrast between 
the two clauses, as if they described two different processes and 
not merely different parts or aspects of the same process. 


There is a curious parallel to this description in Assump. Moys. i. 13 
Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam, et non coepit eam 
inceptionem creaturae ... palam facere, ut im ea gentes arguantur et humili- 
ter inter se disputationibus arguant sé. 


tOv Noytopav: the Acy:opot are properly ‘thoughts’ conceived in 
the mind, not ‘ arguments’ used in external debate. This appears 
from the usage of the word, which is frequently combined with 
xapdia (moAXoi Aoyrpol ev xapdia avdpds Prov. xix. 21; cf. Ps. xxxii. 11 ; 
Prov. vi. 18): it is used of secret ‘plots’ (Jer. xviii. 18 devre 


62 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. 15-16. 


AoytoadpeOa én) “lepeuiay Noyrpdy, ‘ devise devices’), and of the Divine 
intentions (Jer. xxix [xxxvi] II Aoywodpa éf’ tpas Aoytopdy eipnvns). 
In the present passage St. Paul is describing an internal process, 
though one which is destined to find external expression; it is the 
process by which are formed the moral judgements of men upon 
their fellows. 


‘ The conscience’ and ‘the thoughts’ both belong to the same persons. 
This is rightly seen by Klopper, who has written at length on the p 
before us (Paulinische Studien, Konigsberg, 1887, p. 10); but it does not 
follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are exercised upon the same 
objects, or that perag) dAAjAwv must be referred to the thoughts in the 
sense that influences from without are excluded. The parallel quoted in 
support of this (Matt. xviii. 15 weragd god cat aiTod pdvov) derives that part 
of its meaning from pdvov, not from perafv. 


4 kai: ‘or even,’ ‘or it may be,’ implying that aod. is the ex- 
ception, xarny. the rule. 

16. The best way to punctuate is probably to put (in English) 
a colon after ver. 13, and a semi-colon at the end of ver. 15: ver. 
16 goes back to d:xatw6jcovra in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclu- 
sion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the ev juepa of ver. 5. 
The object of vv. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that 
Gentiles who have no law may yet be judged as if they had one: 
they have a second inferior kind of law, if not any written precepts 
yet the law of conscience; by this law they will be judged when 
quick and dead are put upon their trial. 


Orig., with his usual acuteness, sees the difficulty of connecting ver. 16 with 
ver. 15, and gives an answer which is substantially right. The ‘thoughts 
accusing and condemning’ are not conceived as rising up at the last day but 
now. ‘They leave however marks behind, velut tn cers, ita in corde nostro. 
These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109). 

év tpépa Ste (ef WH. marg.): vg jucpa B, WH. text: & jyépe G A, 
Pesh. Boh. a/., WH. marg. 

Sa "Incod Xpiorod (e¢ WH. marg.): 5: Xpiorod "Incov NB, Orig., Tisch. 
WH. ¢ext. 
xptvet: might be xpive, as RV. marg., fut. regarded as certain. 
cata 7d edayyéAtdy pov. The point to which St. Paul’s Gospel, 

or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will judge the 
world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it shrough 
Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its applica- 
tion, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, Enoch 
xlv, xlvi, with Charles’ notes), 

The phrase «ard 7d evaryry. wow occurs Rom. xvi. 25, of the specially 
Pauline doctrine of ‘free grace’; 2 Tim. ii. 8, (i) of the resurrection of 
Christ from the dead, (ii) of His descent from the seed of David. 

We note in passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced by gaol 
3é, Eus. Z. Z. III. iv. 8), that wherever St. Paul spoke of * his Gospel” he 
meant the Gospel of St. Luke. 


II. 17-29.] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 63 


FAILURE OF THE JEWS. 


II. 17-29. The Few may boast of his possession of a special 
Revelation and a written Law, but all the time his practice 
shows that he ts really no better than the Gentile (vv. 17-24). 
And if he takes his stand on Circumcision, that too ts of 
value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. In this moral 
and spiritual circumcision the Gentile also may share (vv. 
25-29). 

"Do you tell me that you bear the proud name of Jew, that 
you repose on a written law as the charter of your salvation? Do 
you boast that Jehovah is your God, “that you are fully ac- 
quainted with His revealed Will, that you adopt for yourself a high 
standard and listen to the reading of the Law every Sabbath-day? 
*Do you give yourself out with so much assurance as a guide to 
the poor blind Gentile, a luminary to enlighten his darkness? * Do 
you call your pupils dullards and yourself their schoolmaster? Are 
they mere infants and you their teacher? You, who have all 
knowledge and all truth visibly embodied for you in the Law? 
" Boastful Jew! How does your practice comport with your 
theory? So ready to teach others, do you need no teaching your- 
self? The eighth and seventh commandments which you hold 
up to others—do you yourself keep them? You profess to loathe 
and abhor idols; but do you keep your hands from robbing their 
temples? * You vaunt the possession of a law; and by the 
violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it. 
4 As Isaiah wrote that the Gentiles held the Name of God in 
contempt because they saw His people oppressed and enslaved, so 
do they now for a different reason—because of the gross incon- 
sistency in practice of those who claim to be His people. 

* True it is that behind the Law you have also the privilege of 
Circumcision, which marks the people of Promise. And Circum- 
cision has its value if you are a law-performer. But if you are 
a law-breaker you might as well be uncircumcised. ™ Does it not 
follow that if the uncircumcised Gentile keeps the weightier statutes 
of the Moral Law, he will be treated as if he were circumcised? 
7 And uncircumcised as he is, owing to his Gentile birth, yet if he 


64 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS {tt. 17. 


fulfils the Law, his example will (by contrast) condemn you who 
with the formal advantages of a written law and circumcision, only 
break the law of which you boast. ™ For it is not he who has the 
outward and visible marks of a Jew who is the true Jew; neither 
is an outward and bodily circumcision the true circumcision. 
** But he who is inwardly and secretly a Jew is the true Jew; and 
the moral and spiritual circumcision is that which really deserves 
the name. The very word ‘Jew’—descendant of Judah—means 
‘praise’ (Gen. xxix. 35). And such a Jew has his ‘praise,’ not 
from man but from God. 


17. Ei 8€ SAB D* al., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., &c.: “Ide 
DeL al, Harcl., Chrys. @/. The authorities for «i 8¢ include all the 
oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers: ie is 
an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction 
slightly easier. Reading ei 8¢ the apodosis of the sentence begins 
at ver. 21. 

*louSatos: here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew 
it would have a tendency to do) to "Icpan\irns, a member of the 
Chosen People, opposed to the heathen. 


Strictly speaking, ‘Efpaios, opp. ‘EAAnvorfs, calls attention to language; 
*Iovdaios, opp. “EAAny, calls attention to nationality ; "IcpanAiry7s = a member 
of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Tiench, Sy. 
§ xxxix, p. 132 ff.). The word "Iovdaios does not occur in LXX (though 
*Iovdaioyés is found four times in 2 Macc.), but at this date it is the common 
word; ‘Efpaios and "IopanAirys are terms reserved by the Jews themselves, 
the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their race (the 
Palestinian and Greek-speaking), the other to describe their esoteric status. 

For the Jew’s pride in his privileges comp. 4 Ezra vi. 55f haec autem 
omnia dixt coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse, et 
guoniam salivae assimilatae sunt, et quasi stillicidium de vase similasti 
habundantiam corum. 


érovopdty : ‘ bearest the name’: érovopdlev=‘to impose a name,’ 
pass. ‘to have a name imposed.’ 

éravataty vou: ‘have a law to lean upon’: so (without art.) 
NABD*; but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should 
make the statement more definite, ‘lean upon /he Law.’ For énap. 
(reguiescts Vulg.) cf. Mic. iii. 11; Ezek. xxix. 7: the word implies 
at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour 
which resulted to the Jew from the possession of a law. 

kauxdoat év Oem: suggested by Jer. ix. 24 ‘let him that glorieth 
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am 
the Lord.’ 


kavxaoat: for xavyG, stopping at the first step in the process of con- 
traction (kavxdeoat, savxaca, xavxG). This is one of the forms which used 


II. 17-20.] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 65 


to be called ‘ Alexandrine,’ but which simply belong to the popular Greek 

current at the time (Hort, /trod. p. 304). savxaoa: occurs also in 1 Cor. 

iv. 7, kataxavyaoa Rom. xi. 18; comp. ddvyaca: Luke xvi. 23, and from un- 

contracted verbs, payeoa: . . . wicca Luke xvii. 8, Svvaca: Matt. v. 36 (but 

dvvp Mark ix. 22); see Win. Gr. xiii. 26 (p. go). 

18. 76 @€Anpa. Bp. Lightfoot has shown that this phrase was 
so constantly used for ‘the Divine Will’ that even without the art. 
it might have that signification, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 1a (On Revision, 
p- 106 ed. 1, p. 118 ed. 2). 

SoxipdLers Ta Siapepovta: probas uliliora Cod. Clarom. Rufin. 
Vulg.; non modo prae malis bona sed in bonis optima Beng. on 
Phil. i. 10, where the phrase recurs exactly. Both words are 
ambiguous: doximdagew = (i) ‘to test, assay, discern’; (ii) ‘to 
approve after testing’ (see on i. 28); and ra dcapepovra may be 
either ‘things which differ,’ or ‘things which stand out, or excel.’ 
Thus arise the two interpretations represented in RV. and RV. 
marg., with a like division of commentators. The rendering of 
RV. marg. (‘provest the things that differ, ‘hast experience of 
good and bad’ Tyn.) has the support of Euthym.-Zig. (dcaxpivers ra 
diahepovra adAnrwv* oiov Kadbv Kai Kakdv, aperny kai xaxiav), Fri. De W. 
Oltr. Go. Lips. Mou. The rendering of RV. (‘approvest: the 
things that are excellent’) is adopted by Latt. Orig. (fa ut non 
solum quae sint bona scias, verum etiam quae stint meliora et uiilora 
discernas), most English Versions, Mey. Lft. Gif. Lid. (Chrys. does 
not distinguish; Va is undecided). The second rendering is the 
more pointed. 

Katnxoupevos ék Tod vépou: cf. Acts. xv. 21. 


19. wémovWas «.7.A. The common construction after mémoiBas is S71: acc. 
and infin. is very rare. It seems better, with Vaughan, to take ceaurdv 
closely with mérov@as, ‘and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art,’ &c. 

oSynyov...TupAGv. It is natural to compare Matt. xv. 14 Tupdoi eiow 
6dnyot TuPA@Y K.T.A.; also xxiii. 16,24. Lips. thinks that the first saying was 
present to the mind of the Apostle. It would not of course follow that it 
was current in writing, though that too is possible. On the other hand the 
expression may have been more or less proverbial : comp. Wiinsche, Z7Jazt. 
ad. Evang. on Matt. xxiii. 16. The same epithet was given by a Galilaean 
to R. Chasda, Baba Kama fol. 52 a. ‘ When the Shepherd is angry with the 
sheep he blinds their leader; i.e. when God determines to punish the 
Israelites, He gives them unworthy rulers.’ 


20. watSeurqv: ‘a schoolmaster,’ with the idea of discipline, 
correction, as well as teaching; cf. Heb. xii. 9. 

vytiov: ‘infants,’ opp. to reAco; ‘adults,’ as in Heb. v. 13, 14. 

Béppwow: ‘outline,’ ‘delineation,’ ‘embodiment.’ As a rule 
oxjua = Outward form as opp. to inward substance, while poppy 
= outward form as determined by inward substance; so that 
oxjpa is the variable, poppy the permanent, element in things: see 
Lft. Phd. p. 125 ff.; Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 31. Nor does the 
present passage conflict with this distinction. The Law was a real 


66 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1I. 20-23, 


expression of Divine truth, so far as it went. It is more difficult to 
account for 2 Tim. iii. 5 ¢xovres pdppwow ciceBetas ray b€ diva 
aurijs npynuevot. 
See however Lft. in Journ. of Class. and Sacr. Phtlol. (1857) iii. 115 
‘They will observe that in two passages where St. Paul does speak of that 
which is unreal or at least external, and does not employ oxjya, he still 


avoids using opp as inappropriate, and adopts péppwots instead (Rom. ii. 
20; 2 Tim. iii. 5), where the termination -wors denotes ‘‘the aiming after or 
affecting the poppy.’ Can this quite be made good? 

21. ogy: resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long pro- 
tasis in vv. 17-20. After the string of points, suspended as it were 
in the air, by which the Apostle describes the Jew’s complacency, 
he now at last comes down with his emphatic accusation. Here 
is the ‘Thou art the man’ which we have been expecting since 
ver. I. 


kérrew: infin. because xypvcoov contains the idea of command. 


22. BSehuccduevos: used of the expression of physical disgust, 
esp. of the Jew’s horror at idolatry. 


. Note the piling up of phrases in Deut. vii. 26 «at ob« elooloets BdéAvypa 
{here of the gold and silver plates with which idols were overlaid] els 
Tov olkév cov, kal éon dvaOnua womep TovTO, mpocoxSiopuaTt mpogoxets Kat 
BdedAvypart BdeAvVED, Ste GvaOnya éotcv, Comp. also Dan. xii. 11; Matt. xxiv. 
15, &c. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to carry 
the idols of the heathen: Assump. Moys. viii. 4 cogentur palam batulare sdola 


corum inquinata. 


tepooudets. The passage just quoted (Deut. vii. 26 with 25), 
Joseph. Azz. IV. viii. 10, and Acts xix. 37 (where the town-clerk 
asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ‘ of iepdovdor’) show 
that the robbery of temples was a charge to which the Jews were 
open in spite of their professed horror of idol-worship. 


There were provisions in the Talmud which expressly guarded against 
this: everything which had to do with an idol was a BdeAvyya to him unless 
it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. But for this the Jew might 
have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good 
work. See the passages in Delitzsch ad Joc.; also on iepoovAia, which must 
not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., Zss. om Supern. Rel. p. 299 f.; 
Ramsay, Zhe Church im the Roman Empire, p. 1440., where it is noted 
that icpoovAia was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could 
proceed against by his own zmpertum. 

The Eng. Versions of iepocvAeis group themselves thus: ‘robbest God of 
his honour’ Tyn. Cran. Genev.; ‘doest sacrilege’ (or equivalent) Wic. 
Rhem. AV. RV. marg.; ‘dost rob temples’ RV. 


28. It is probably best not to treat this verse as a question. 
The questions which go before are collected by a summary accu- 
sation. Gif. with a delicate sense of Greek composition, sees 
a hint of this in the change from participles to the relative and 
indic. (6 SiSdokov .. . ds Kavyaoat). 


II. 24-27.] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 697 


24. A free adaptation of Is. lii. 5 (LXX). Heb. ‘ And con- 
tinually all the day long My Name is blasphemed’: LXX adds to 
this 8¢ dpas and év rois €Oveow, St. Paul omits dcaravrés and changes 
prov tO Tov Gcov. 

The original meant that the Name of God was reviled by the 
tyrants and oppressors of Israel: St. Paul, following up a suggestion 
in the LXX (8 spas), traces this reviling to the scandal caused 
by Israel’s inconsistency. The fact that the formula of quotation 
is thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the 
passage freely: it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the 
language he has just used is a quotation at all. See the longer 
note on ch. x, below. 


25. vopov mpacoys. On the absence of the art. see especially the scholarly 
note in Va.: ‘It is almost as if vdpov mpaccew and véyov tapaBarns were 
severally like vopoOeretv, vopopudakety, &c., vopobéTys, vopodbacKanros, &c., 
one compound word: if thou be a law-doer... of thou be a law-transgressor, 
&c., indicating the character of the person, rather than calling attention to 
the particular form or designation of the law, which claims obedience.’ 

yeyovev: ‘is by that very fact become.’ Del. quotes the realistic ex- 
pression given to this idea in the Jewish fancy that God would send his 
angel to remove the marks of circumcision on the wicked. 


26. eis mepitouyy NoyroOjcetar: AoyilerOa: els Te = Aoyileo Oa eis 7d 
eivai tt, eis denoting result, ‘so as to be in place of,’ ‘reckoned as 
a substitute or equivalent for’ (Fri., Grm.-Thay. s. v. Aoyifoua: 1 a). 


Of the synonyms 77peiv, puAdocev, TeAciv ; tTypeiv = ‘to keep an eye upon,’ 
*to observe carefully’ (and then do); ¢uAdccew = ‘to guard as a deposit,’ 
‘to preserve intact’ against violence from without or within; TeAciy = ‘to 
bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment’ in action; typefy and ¢vAdocey are 
both from the point of view of the agent, reAciy from that of the law which 
is obeyed. See Westcott on Jo. xvii. 12; 1 Jo. ii. 3. 


27. xptwvet: most probably categorical and not a question as 
AV. and RV.; = ‘condemn’ by comparison and contrast, as in 
Matt. xii. 41, 42 ‘the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judge- 
ment with this generation and shall condemn it,’ &c. Again we 
are pointed back to vv. 1-3; the judge of others shall be himself 
judged. 

4 éx dUcews axpoBuotia: uncircumcision which physically re- 
mains as it was born. The order of the words seems opposed to 
Prof. Burton’s rendering, ‘the uncircumcision which by nature 
fulfils the law’ (ek uc. =qucet v. 14). - 

did of ‘attendant circumstances’ as in iv. 11, Vili, 25, xiv. 20; 
Anglicé ‘with,’ with all your advantages of circumcision and the 
possession of a written law. 

The distinction between the literal Israel which is after the flesh 
and the true spiritual Israel is a leading idea with St. Paul and 
is worked out at length in ix. 6 ff.; see also pp. 2, 14 sup. We may 


68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ II. 27-29. 


compare Phil. iii. 3, where St.. Paul claims that Christians represent 
the true circumcision, 


28. 6 &v to gavepo. The Greek of this and the next verse is elliptical, 
and there is some ambiguity as to how much belongs to the subject and how 
much to the predicate. Even accomplished scholars like Dr. Gifford and 
Dr. Vaughan differ. The latter has some advantage in symmetry, making 
the missing words in both clauses belong to the subject (‘Not he who is 
{a Jew] outwardly isa Jew... but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew’) ; 
but it is a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates weprroph 
and xapdias: Gif., as it seems to us rightly, combines these (‘he which is 
inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew], and circumcision of heart... [is true 
circumcision’}). Similarly Lips. Weiss (but not Mey.). 


29. wepttoph kapdtas. The idea of a spiritual (heart-) circum- 
cision goes back to the age of Deuteronomy; Deut. x. 16 mepire- 
peioOe thy oxAnpoxapdiav ipav: Jer. iv. 4 mepitunOnre TO Cc@ tpav, wal 
mepirépecbe tiv oxdnpoxapdiav buoy: cf. Jer. ix. 26; Ezek. xliv. 7; 
Acts vii. 51. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian 
circumcision, Dial. c. Tryph 114. 

6 Emawos. We believe that Dr. Gifford was the first to point 
out that there is here an evident play on the name ‘ Jew’: Judah 
=‘ Praise’ (cf. Gen. xxix. 35; xlix. 8). 


CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


III. 1-8. This argument may suggest three objections: 
i) Lf the moral Gentile is better off than the immoral Few, 
what becomes of the Few’s advantages ?’— ANSWER. He still 
has many. His (e.g.) are the promises (vv. 1-2). (ii) But 
has not the Fews unbelief cancelled those promises ?— 
ANSWER. Wo unbelief on the part of man can affect the 
pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithful- 
ness (vv. 3, 4). (iii) If that ts the result of his action, why 
should man be judged ?—ANSWER. He certainly will be 
judged: we may not say (as I am falsely accused of saying), 
Do evil that good may come (vv. 5-8). 


‘If the qualifications which God requires are thus inward and 
spiritual, an objector may urge, What becomes of the privileged 
position of the Jew, his descent from Abraham, and the like? 
What does he gain by his circumcision? *He does gain much 
on all sides. The first gain is that to the Jews were committed 


III. 1-8.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 69 


the prophecies of the Messiah. [Here the subject breaks off; 
a fuller enumeration is given in ch. ix. 4, 5.] 

®You say, But the Jews by their unbelief have forfeited their 
share in those prophecies. And I admit that some Jews have 
rejected Christianity, in which they are fulfilled. What then? 
The promises of God do not depend on man, He will keep His 
word, whatever man may do. ‘To suggest otherwise were 
blasphemy. Nay, God must be seen to be true, though all man- 
kind are convicted of falsehood. Just as in Ps. li the Psalmist 
confesses that the only effect of his own sin will be that (in 
forensic metaphor) God will be ‘ declared righteous’ in His sayings 
[the promises just mentioned], and gain His case when it is brought 
to trial. 

5A new objection arises. If our unrighteousness is only 
a foil to set off the righteousness of God would not God be unjust 
who punishes men for sin? (Speaking of God as if He were man 
can hardly be avoided.) * That too were blasphemy to think! If 
any such objection were sound, God could not judge the world. 
But we know that He will judge it. Therefore the reasoning must 
be fallacious. 

™If, you say, as in the case before us, the truthfulness of 
God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my 
infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am I still like 
other offenders (cai) brought up for judgement as a sinner? 

®So the objector. And I know that this charge of saying 
‘Let us do evil that good may come’ is brought with slanderous 
exaggeration against me—as if the stress which I lay on faith 
compared with works meant, Never mind what your actions are, 
provided only that the end you have in view is right. 

All I will say is that the judgement which these sophistical 
reasoners will receive is richly deserved. 


1ff. It is characteristic of this Epistle that St. Paul seems 
to imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he 
discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring 
against him (so iii, 1 ff, iv. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff, 15 ff., vii. 7 ff). No 
doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own 
mind. But at the same time it is a way which would seem to 
have been suggested by actual experience of controversy with 
Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly 


7° EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [rI1. 1,2 


that the charge of saying ‘Let us do evil that good may come’ 
was brought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). And 
vi. 1, 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle 
as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the 
logic of his own thought. And the other charge of levelling down 
all the Jew’s privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and dis- 
paraging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been 
brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against 
St. Stephen (Acts vi. 13 f.). It is probable however that St Paul 
had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed 
against him as a weapon in controversy; and he propounds it in 
the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reason- 
ing, pro andcon., which went to the shaping of his own system. 
The modified form in which the question comes up the second 
time (ver. 9) shows—if our interpretation is correct—that St. Paul is 
there rather following out his own thought than contending with 
an adversary. 

1. 13 meptocody, That which encircles a thing necessarily 
lies outside it. Hence zepi would seem to have a latent meaning 
‘beyond,’ which is appropriated rather by 7épa, mépav, but comes out 
in mepicods, ‘ that which is in excess,’ ‘ over and above.’ 

2. mpatov pév: intended to be followed by ére:ra 8¢, but the line 
of argument is broken off and not resumed. A list of privileges 
such as might have followed here is given in ch. ix. 4. 


mpatov pev yap: om. yap B D* E G minusc. pauc., verss. plur., Chrys. 
Orig.-lat. a/., (yap) WH. 

émorevOnoav. morevo, in the sense of ‘ entrust,’ ‘confide,’ takes acc. of 
the thing entrusted, dat. of the person; e.g. Jo. ii. 24 6 5& "Incovs ob« éni- 
atevey éavtdy [rather aizév or airév] avrois. In the passive the dat. 
becomes nom., and the acc. remains unchanged (Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190; 
Winer, xxxii. 5 [p. 287]; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7). 


7a Aéya. St. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O. T. 
regarded as the Word of God, but he seems to have in view rather 
those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably Divine ; 
the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the 
Messiah. 


The old account of Adyov as a dimin. of Adyos is probably correct, though 
Mey.-W. make it neut. of Adyos on the ground that Aoyidioy is the proper 
dimin. The form Aoyidrov is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process 
common in language took the place of Adyov when it acquired the special 
sense of ‘oracle. From Herod. downwards Adédyov = ‘oracle’ as a brief 
condensed saying; and so it came to = any ‘inspired, divine utterance’: 
e. g. in Philo of the ‘ prophecies’ and of the ‘ten commandments’ (mepi tay 
5éxa Aoyiwv is the title of Philo’s treatise). So in LXX the expression is 
used of the ‘word of the Lord’ five times in Isaiah and frequently in the 
Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Ps. cxix [cxviii]). From this usage 
it was natural that it should be transferred to the ‘sayings’ of the Lord 
Jesus (Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 1 bs Gy peOodedp ra Adya tod Kupiou: cf. len, 


III. 2-4.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 71 


Adv. Haer.< praef.; also Weiss, Ziz/. § 5. 4). But from the time of Philo 
onwards the word was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or 
narrative; so that it isa disputed point whether the Aéya tod Kupiov which 
Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own Aoyiev xupiaxay éfnynoas 
(Eus. #. £. III. xxxix. 16 and I) were or were not limited to discourse (see 
especially Lightfoot, Zss. on Supern. Rel. p. 172 ff.). 


3. iwlommsav . . . dmotia. Do these words refer to ‘ unbelief’ 
(Mey. Gif. Lid. Oltr. Go.) or to ‘unfaithfulness’ (De W. Weiss 
Lips. Va.)? Probably, on the whole, the former: because (i) the 
main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the 
O. T. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ ; (ii) 
chaps. ix—xi show that the problem of Israel’s unbelief weighed 
heavily on the Apostle’s mind ; (iii) ‘ unbelief’ is the constant sense 
of the word (dmoréw occurs seven times, in which the only apparent 
exception to this sense is 2 Tim. ii. 13. and dmeria eleven times, 
with no clear exception) ; (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. xi. 20 
TH aniotia e€exAaobnoay, ov S€ TH micte Eornxas. At the same time 
the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other; so that the 
amortia Of man is naturally contrasted with the sions of God 
(cf. Va.). 

mtony: ‘faithfulness’ to His promises; cf. Lam. iii. 23 woAAy 49 
niotts gov: Ps. Sol. viii. 35 7 miotis cov ped quar. 

Katapyjcet. xarapyeiy (from xara causative and apyds = depyés) 
=‘ to render inert or inactive’: a characteristic word with St. Paul, 
occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 2 Thess. 
Eph. 2 Tim.), and only twice elsewhere (Lk. Heb.) : = (i) in 
a material sense, ‘to make sterile or barren,’ of soil Lk. xiii. 7, 
cf. Rom. vi. 6 ta xatapyn67 76 cHpa tis duaprias, ‘ that the body as 
an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless’ ; 
(ii) in a figurative sense, ‘to render invalid,’ ‘ abrogate,’ ‘ abolish’ 
(rqv érayyedav Gal. iii. 17 ; véuov Rom. iii. 31). 

4. pi yévoiro: a formula of negation, repelling with horror 
something previously suggested. ‘Fourteen of the fifteen N. T. 
instances are in Paul’s writings, and in twelve of them it expresses 
the Apostle’s abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be 
falsely drawn from his argument’ (Burton, JZ. and 7. § 177; cf. 
also Lft. on Gal. ii. 17). 


It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. 
that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in 1 Cor., twice 
in Gal.). It occurs five times in LXX, not however standing alone as here, 
but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Gen. xliv. 7, 17 ; Josh. xxii. 29, 
xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xx [xxi]. 3). 


ywvéo8w: see on i. 3 above; the transition which the vero 
denotes is often from a latent condition to an apparent condition. 
and so here, ‘ prove to be,’ ‘ be seen to be.” 

é\nOys: as keeping His plighted word. 


72 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 4, 5. 


¥edorns : in asserting that God’s promises have not been fulfilled. 

Kabis yéypantat: ‘ Zven as it stands written.’ The quotation is 
exact from LXX of Ps. li [1]. 6. Note the mistranslations in LKX 
(which St. Paul adopts), u«jons (or uxnoes) for insons sts, &v T 
xpives@a (pass.) for im tudicando or dum iudicas. The sense of the 
original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God’s 
judgement upon him. The result of his sin is that God is pro- 
nounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in His judging. 
St. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put upon trial 
and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which He has 
fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfilment. 


Smos év: dy points to an unexpressed condition, ‘in case a decision is 
given.’ 


SixawOys: ‘that thou mightest be pronounced righteous’ by 
the judgement of mankind; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Matt. xi. 
1g Kai édtxawbn 9. copia and tev épywv (Vv. 1. réxvwv: cf. Lk. vii. 35) 
aurns. Test, XII Patr. Sym. 6 dros dicawOG amd ris dpaprias tov 
yuxav ipov. Ps. Sol. ii. 16 ey® dStxadow oe 6 eds. The usage 
occurs repeatedly in this book; see Ryle and James ad oc. 

év tots Adyots gou: not ‘ pleadings’ (Va.) but ‘sayings,’ i.e. the 
Asya just mentioned. Heb. probably = ‘ judicial sentence.’ 

vukyoys : like vincere, of ‘gaining a suit,’ opp. to yrraeOas: the 
full phrase is uxav ray dixny (Eur. ZZ. 955, &c.). 


w«nops, BG KL &c.; vuxqoes SADE, minusc.alig. Probably uejoas 
is right, because of the agreement of 8 A with the older types of Western 
Text, thus representing two great families. The reading vunogs in B appa- 
rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which would seem 
to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar 
fuctuation in MSS. of the LXX: menogs is the reading of NB (def. A), 
m“noes of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX used by St. Paul differs 
not seldom from that of the great uncials. 


xpiveo@at: probably not mid. (‘to enter upon trial,’ ‘ go to law,’ 
lit. ‘get judgment for oneself’) as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass. 
as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c.; see the arguments 
from the usage of LXX and Heb. in Kautzsch, De Vet. Zest. Locts 
a Paulo allegatis, p. 24 N.). 

5. 7 Gdixia jpav: a general statement, including ameria. In 
like manner ©cod Sixaoctvny is general, though the particular 
instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God 
to His promises. 

ouviatnot: ovvictnus (cuncrdvw) has in N. T. two conspicuous 
meanings: (i) ‘to bring together’ as two persons, ‘to introduce’ 
or ‘commend’ to one another (e.g. Rom. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. iii. 1; iv. 2; 
v. 12, &c.; cf. ovorarixai émiorodai 2 Cor. iii. 1); (ii) ‘to put 
together’ or ‘make good’ by argument, ‘to prove,’ ‘establish’ 


III. 5-7.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 73 


(compositis collectisque quae rem contineant arguments aliquid doceo 
Fritzsche), as in Rom. v. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 11; Gal. ii. 18 (where see 
Lft. and Ell.). 


Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. (cumordveww> ératveiv, pavepovy, 
BeBawoiy, maparibéva.) ; but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the 
uses of the word in LXX; the second is found in Susann. 61 avéornoay 
ert rovs dt0 mpeoBras, Ott cuveoTnaev adTovs AavinA WeodouaprophoayTas 


(Theod.). 


ti époduev: another phrase, like py yévorro, which is charac- 
teristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times; not elsewhere 
in N. T. 

pi) GSixos: the form of question shows that a negative answer is 
expected (7 originally meant ‘ Don’t say that,’ &c.). 

6 émipepwr tiv épyyv: most exactly, ‘the inflicter of the anger’ 
(Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on i. 18, 
xii. 19. 

Burton however makes 6 émipépov strictly equivalent to a relative clause, 


and like a relative clause suggest a reason (‘ Who visiteth’ =‘ because He 
visiteth’) MZ. and T. § 428. 


Kata av@pwrov A¢yw: a form of phrase which is also charac- 
teristic of this group of Epistles, where the eager argumentation of 
the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and 
divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. The exact 
phrase recurs only in Gal. iii. 15 ; put comp. also 1 Cor. ix. 8 
py Kata GvOpwroy taira Aad@: 2 Cor. Xi. 17 6 AaA@, ov Kara Kuprov 
Aahe. 

6. éwet mOs kpwvet: St. Paul and his readers alike held as axio- 
matic the belief that God would judge the world. But the objection 
just urged was inconsistent with that belief, and therefore must 
fall to the ground. 


émel; ‘since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily 
implied injustice.’ “E7eé gets the meaning ‘if so,’ ‘if not’ (‘or else’), from 
the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated: 
here émei sc. ef Gdixos Eoras 6 émpépov Thy dpyqv (cf. Buttmann, Gr. of WV. T. 


G&. p. 359)- 
tov Kéopoy: all mankind. 


e 5€ NA minusc. pauc., Vulg. cod. Boh., Jo.-Damasc., Tisch. WH. fext. 
RV. fext.; ei yap BDEGKLP &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. a/., WH. 
marg. RV. marg. ‘The second reading may be in its origin Western. 


7. The position laid down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side 
of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God. 

é\nPea: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises ; 
Weioua, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as 
in ver. 4). 

xayé: ‘1 too,’ as well as others, though my falsehood thus 


74 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 7, 8. 


redounds to God’s glory. St. Paul uses the first person from 
motives of delicacy, just as in 1 Cor. iv. 6 he ‘ transfers by a fiction’ 
(Dr. Field’s elegant rendering of perecxnudrica) to himself and his 
friend Apollos what really applied to his opponents. 

8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle’s mind: (i) 
the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever 
that evil may be done for the sake of good; (ii) the accusation 
brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil 
might be done for the sake of good. The single clause momowpev 
Ta kaka tva €Oy 7a dyaba is made to do duty for both these trains of 
thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with 
vi... pn, in the other with A€yovow dx. This could be brought 
out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation: ri ért kay os 
duaptadds, Kpivopat; Kal [ri] pn—xabas Brucdpypovpeba, kat xabas Paci 
Ties Mas héyew drt—zroinT@pev x.t.4. There is a very similar con- 
struction in vv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice over to 
the same words, «és [pés] Thy evderEw HS Sixacocvvns avtov, and the 
words which follow the second time are meant to complete both 
clauses, the first as well as the second. It is somewhat similar 
when in ch. ii. ver. 16 at once carries on and completes wv. 15 
and 13. 

St. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Anti- 
nomianism. What he said was, ‘ The state of righteousness is not 
to be attained through legal works; it is the gift of God.’ He 
was represented as saying ‘therefore it does not matter what a man 
does ’—an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only 
here but in vi. 1 ff., 15 ff. 

Gv Td kptpa «.t.A. This points back to ri ért nay xpivona; the 
plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing ; the judge- 
ment (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does 
not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny 
directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away 
an excuse which is obviously unreal. 


UNIVERSAL FAILURE TO ATTAIN TO 
RIGHTEOUSNESS. 


Ill. 9-20. /f the case of us Fews is so bad, are the 
Gentiles any better? No. The same accusation covers both. 
The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt, 
which ts laid down in Ps. xiv and graphically described in 
Pss. v, cxl, x, 22 Is. lix, and again im Ps. xxxvi. And of 


III. 9-20.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 75 


the Few is equally guilty with the Gentile, still less can he 
escape punishment; for the Law which threatens him with 
punishment ts his own. So then the whole system of Law 
and works done in fulfilment of Law, has proved a failure. 
Law can reveal sin, but not remove it. 


*To return from this digression. What inference are we to 
draw? Are the tables completely turned? Are we Jews not only 
equalled but surpassed (mpoexdpeéa passive) by the Gentiles? Not at 
all. There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles. 
The indictment which we have just brought against both (in i. 18- 
32, il. 17-29) proves that they are equally under the dominion 
of sin. The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. Thus 
in Ps. xiv [here with some abridgment and variation], the Psalmist 
complains that he cannot find a single righteous man, that there is 
none to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth, none to 
show any desire for the knowledge of God. ™They have all (he 
says) turned aside from the straight path. They are like milk 
that has turned sour and bad. There is not so much asa single 
right-doer among them. ™ This picture of universal wickedness 
may be completed from such details as those which are applied 
to the wicked in Ps. v. 9 [exactly quoted]. Just as a grave stands 
yawning to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption, 
so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved 
and lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in 
Ps. cxl. 3 [also exactly quoted]: the poison-bag of the asp lies 
under their smooth and flattering lips. 7So, as it is described in 
Ps. x. 7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing 
and venom. ™ Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX 
of Is. lix. 7, 8]: They run with eager speed to commit murder. 
%* Their course is marked by ruin and misery. ™ With smiling 
paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. 1 To sum up the 
character of the ungodly ina word [from Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). 1 LXX]: 
The fear of God supplies no standard for their actions. 

Thus all the world has sinned. And not even the Jew can 
claim exemption from tne consequences of his sin. For when the 
Law of Moses denounces those consequences it speaks especially 
to the people to whom it was given. By which it was designed 


76 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 9. 


that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, 
and that all mankind might be held accountable to God. 

* This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of 
Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope 
to be declared righteous in God’s sight. For the only effect of 
Law is to open men’s eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable 
them to do better. That method, the method of works, has 
failed. A new method must be found. 


9. ti ofv; ‘ What then [follows]?’ Not with rpoexdye6a, because 
that would require in reply ovdev rdvras, not od mavtas. 

mpoexépe0a is explained in three ways: as intrans. in the same 
sense as the active mpo€yw, as trans. with its proper middle force, 
and as passive. (i) mpoexdpeba mid. = mpoéyopev (praecellimus eos 
Vulg. ; and so the majority of commentators; ancient and modern, 
"Apa Treptoaoy Exopuev mapa Tovs “ENAnvas; Euthym.-Zig. €xouev te mhéov 
kai evdoxiuwodper of "Iovdaioe ; Theoph. ‘ Do we think ourselves better ?’ 
Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there 
seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written 
mpoéxouev, the common form in such contexts. (ii) mpoexdpeOa trans. 
in its more ordinary middle sense, ‘put forward as an excuse or 
pretext’ (‘Do we excuse ourselves?’ RV. marg., ‘Have we any 
defence?’ Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, 
and as we have just seen ri odv cannot be combined with mpoexducOa 
because of od mavtws. (iii) mpoexdueba passive, ‘ Are we excelled?’ 
‘ Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles)?’ a rare use, but still 
one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Of. orv. LI ad 
Joc.). Some of the best scholars (e. g. Lightfoot, Field) incline to 
this view, which has been adopted in the text of RV. The prin- 
cipal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted 
(ver. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile: how then 
does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew? 
The answer would seem to be that a different kind of ‘advantage’ 
is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is Azs/ortc, it 
lies in the possession of superior privileges; the practical equality 
of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition 
(ch. ii. 17-29 balanced against ch. i. 18-32). In this latter respect 
St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places 
(ii. 25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take mpoeyéueOa as pass., 
but give it the same sense as mpo¢youev, ‘Are we (Jews) preferred 
(to the Gentiles) in the sight of God?’ 


mpoexopeba: v. 1. mpoxaréxopev repioody D* G, 31; Antiochene Fathers 
(Chrys. [ed. Field] Theodt. Severianus’, also Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. (some MSS. 
but not the best, senemus amiplius): a gloss explaining mpoey. in the same 


III. 9, 10.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 7 


way as Vulg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above. AL read 
®poexwpeda, é 


ob mdvtws. Strictly speaking od should qualify mdvres, ‘not 
altogether,’ ‘not entirely,’ as in 1 Cor. v. 10 od mdvras Trois mépvois 
Tov Kdocpov Tovrov: but in some cases, as here, mdvtws qualifies ov, 
‘altogether not,’ ‘entirely not,’ i.e. ‘not at all’ (meguaquam Vulg., 
ovdauds Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in od maw; and see 
Win. Gr. Ixi. 5. 

Tpontiacdue0a: in the section i. 18-ii. 29. 


td’ Gpapriav. In Biblical Greek ié with dat. has given place entirely to 
td with acc. Matt. viii. 9 dv@pwrds eis im efovaiay is a strong case. The 
change has already taken place in LXX; e.g Deut. xxxiii. 3 wavzes ol 
Hyacpevo ind Tas xEipds cou, kal ovTa bd aé elat. 


10. The long quotation which follows, made up of a number of 
passages taken from different parts of the O.T., and with no 
apparent break between them, is strictly in accordance with the 
Rabbinical practice. ‘A favourite method was that which derived 
its name from the stringing together of beads (Czaraz), when a 
preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, 
strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar, 
from the Prophets and the Hagiographa’ (Edersheim, Zz/e and 
Times, &c. i. 449). We may judge from this instance that the 
. first quotation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch 
—though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as 
compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the 
O. T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Rom. 
ix. 25 f.; 27 f.; xi. 26f.; 34 f.; xii. r9f.; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Here the 
passages are from Pss. xiv [xiii]. 1-3 (=Ps. liii. 1-3 [lii. 2-4]), 
ver. I free, ver. 2 abridged, ver. 3 exact; v. 9 [10] exact; cxl. 3 
[cxxxix. 4] exact: x. 7 [ix. 28] free; Is. lix. 7, 8 abridged; Ps. 
xxxvi [xxxv]. 1. The degree of relevance of each of these 
passages to the argument is indicated by the paraphrase: see also 
the additional note at the end of ch. x. 


As a whole this conglomerate of quotations has had a curious history. 
The quotations in N.T. frequently react upon the text of O.T., and they have 
done so here: vv. 13-18 got imported bodily into Ps. xiv [xiii LXX| as an 
appendage to ver. 4 in the ‘common’ text of the LXX (% «own, ie. the 
unrevised text current in the time of Origen). They are still found in Codd. 
&* BRU and many cursive MSS. of LXX (om. NA), though the Greek 
commentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. From interpolated 
MSS. such as these they found their way into Lat.-Vet., and so into 
Jerome’s first edition of the Psalter (the ‘Roman’), also into his second 
edition (the ‘ Gallican,’ based upon Origen’s Hexap/a), though marked with 
an obelus after the example of Origen. The obelus dropped out, and they 
are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms, which is practically 
the Gallican. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale’s Bible 
(A.D. 1535); from thence into Matthew’s (Rogers’) Bible, which in the 


78 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 9-12. 


Psalter reproduces Coverdale (A.D. 1537), and also into the ‘Great Bible’ 
(first issued by Cromwell in 1539, and afterwards with a preface by Cranmer, 
whence it also bears the name of Cranmer’s Bible, in 1540). The Psalter of 
the Great Bible was incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer, in which 
it was retained as being familiar and smoother to sing, even in the later 
revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 1611. The 
editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who put an * to the 
es found in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. These marks 
owever had the same fate which befell the obeli of Jerome. They were 
not repeated in the Prayer-Book; so that English Churchmen still read the 
interpolated verses in Ps. xiv with nothing to distinguish them from the rest 
of the text. Jerome himself was well aware that these verses were no part 
of the Psalm. In his commentary on Isaiah, lib. xvi, he notes that St. Paul 
quoted Is. lix. 7, 8 in Ep. to Rom., and he adds, guod multi ignorantes, de 
tertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant, qui versus \atixo.\ tn editione Vulgata 
[i.e. the xow7 of the LXX] additi sunt et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron. 
Opp. ed. Migne, iv. 601 ; comp. the preface to the same book, #é7d. col. 568 f. 5 
also. the newly discovered Commentarioli in Psalmos, ed. Morin, 1895, p. 24 f.). 


10. Some have thought that this verse was not part of the 
quotation, but a summary by St. Paul of what follows. It does 
indeed present some variants from the original, dixaos for moar 
xpnorornra and ovde els for ovk eorw ews évds. In the LXX this clause 
is a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. 3. St. Paul 
there keeps to his text; but we cannot be surprised that in the 
opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which 
more directly suggests the connexion with his main argument. 
The dixatos ‘shall live by faith’; but till the coming of Christianity 
there was no true dikaos and no true faith. The verse runs too 
much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a 
quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner which 
is characteristic of St. Paul. 


ll. odk éotw 6 cundv: non est qui inielligat (rather than gut 
intelligit); Anglicé, ‘there is none to understand.’ [But ABG, 
and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. “ex? read cunay, as also 
(B)C WH. éext éxfyrav, without the art. afier LXX. This would = 
non est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) ‘There is 
no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.’ 

6 ouvidv: on the form see Win. Gr. § xiv, 16 (ed. 8; xiv, 3 E. T.); Hort, 

Intr. Notes on Orthog. p. 167; also for the accentuation, Fri. p. 174 f. 

Both forms, cvvéw and ouviw, are found, and either accentuation, cvm@y or 


ouviev, may be adopted: probably the latter is te be preferred; cf. #qce from 
dgio Mk. i. 34, xi. 16. 


12. Gpa: ‘one and all.’ 
Axpetdbyoav: Heb. = ‘to go bad,’ ‘become sour,’ like milk; 
comp. the axpeios dodAos of Matt. xxv. 30. 
moiay (sine artic.) ABG &c. WH. éext. 


xpyotornta = ‘ goodness’ in the widest sense, with the idea of 
- ‘utility’ rather than specially of ‘ kindness,’ as in ii. 4. 


III. 12-19.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 79 


€ws évés: cp. the Latin idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. literally usgue ad 
unum). B67**, WH. marg. omit the second ov« éorw [ove éorw Tov 
xpnoToérnta ews évds|. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are 
open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In ver.14 B17 
add airay (dy 70 atépa avt@y) corresponding to avrod in B’s text of Ps. x. 7 
[ix. 28]. 


18. tdpos .. . eSohvoicav. The LXX of Ps. v. g [10] corre- 
sponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause = rather Anguam 
suam blandam reddunt (poliunt), or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur 
(Kautzsch, p. 34): ‘their tongue do they make smooth’ Cheyne; 
‘smooth speech glideth from their tongue’ De Witt. 


€o0Avotcav: Win. Gr. § xiii, 14 (ed. 8; xiii, af. E. T.). The termina- 
tion -sav, extended from imperf. and 2nd aor. of verbs in -ju to verbs in -a, is 
widely found ; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, but by no 
means confined to it; it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by 
one grammarian a ‘ Boeotian’ form, as by others ‘ Alexandrian.’ 


ids domiSwv: Ps. cxl. 3 [cxxxix. 4]. The position of the poison- 
bag of the serpent is rightly described. The venom is more 
correctly referred to the bite (as in Num. xxi. 9; Prov. xxiii. 32), 
than to the forked tongue (Job xx. 16): see art. ‘Serpent’ in 
D. B. 

14, Ps. x. 7 somewhat freely from LXX [ix. 28]: 08 dpas rd 
oTopa avrod yeuer Kat muxpias kai Sddov. St. Paul retains the rel. but 
changes it into the plural: oréya airéy B 17, Cypr., WH. marg. 

mkpta: Heb. more lit. = fraudes. 

15-17. This quotation of Is. lix. 7, 8 is freely abridged from the 
LXX; and as it is also of some interest from its bearing upon 
the text of the LXX used by St. Paul, it may be well to give the 
original and the quotation side by side. 


Rom. iii. 15-17. 
dfeis oi wddes aita&v exxéat atpa’ 
ovvTpiypa kai Tadaurwpia ev tais 
dois avt@v, Kal doy eipnyns ove 
Fyvecay. 


Is. lix. 7, 8. 
ol 8¢ nédes aitav [emi movnpiav 
tpéxavat] taxwoi ekxéar aiua [kat of 
Stadoyiopol avrav Siadoyiopot amd 


dédvar]. 


> a © - I A ‘ 586 bee 
ev Tais odois QuT@Y Kal OOOY ELpnvns 


’ A ’ 
ouvTpiypa Kat TadarTwpia 


ovr otdact [xat ou Ears Kpiows ep 


Tais oOois avrév]. 


alua dvalrioy Theodotion, and probably also Aquila and Symmachus, 
| From the Hexaf/a this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] 

appovar (for and pévwv) AN: otdace N' BQ*, &c.: éyvwoay AQ! marg, 
(Q = Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) mznusc. alig. 


19. What is the meaning of this verse? Does it mean that the 
passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (6 véyos = O. T.; 


80 EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS ___[III. 19, 20, 


vouov thy madaav ypadny dvoudfe, hs pepos Ta mpopntixa Euthym.- 
Zig.), and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the 
Gentiles? So most commentators. Or does it mean that the 
guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also 
expect punishment, the Law (6 voues = the Pentateuch) affirming 
the connexion between sin and punishment. SoGif. Both interpre- 
tations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove 
that al? men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was 
really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were 
apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held 
that—whatever happened to the Gentiles—they would escape.] 
The question really turns upon the meaning of 6 vépos. It is 
urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where 
6 vépos Clearly=O. T. (1 Cor. xiv. 21, a quotation of Is. xxviii. 11): 
compare however Jo. x. 34 (= Ps. lxxxii. 6), xv. 25 (= Ps. 
XXXV. Ig); (ii) that in the corresponding clause, rois €v t@ vopo 
must = the Law, in the narrower sense ; (iii) that in ver. 21 the 
Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets. 

Yet these arguments are hardly decisive : for (i) the evidence is 
sufficient to show that St. Paul might have used 6 véyes in the wider 
sense; for this one instance is as good as many ; and (ii) we must 
not suppose that St. Paul always rigidly distinguished which sense 
he was using ; the use of the word in one sense would call up the 
other (cf. Note on 6 @dvaros in ch. v. 12). 


Oltr. also goes a way of his own, but makes 6 véyos = Law in the 
abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the 
Jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of 6 vdpos. 


héyee . . . AaNet: A€yew calls attention to the substance of what 
is spoken, Aadeiv to the outward utterance; cf. esp. MeClellan, 
Gospeis, p. 383 ff. 

ppayy : cf. dvaroddyntos i. 20, ii. 2; the idea comes up at each 
step in the argument. 

imd8uxos: not exactly ‘guilty before God,’ but ‘answerable to 
God.’ odiKcos takes gen. of the penalty ; dat. of the person 
injured to whom satisfaction is due (rév diurAaciwv imdducos éoTw 
76 BAapbervte Plato, Legg. 846 B). So here: all mankind has 
offended against God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use 
of a forensic term. 

20. Sidrt: ‘because,’ not ‘therefore,’ as AV. (see on i. 19). 
Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is 
nothing else to afford them protection. Law can open men’s 
eyes to sin, but cannot remove it. Why this is so is shown in 
vii. 7 ff. 

StkawwOycerar: ‘shall be pronounced righteous,’ certainly not 
‘shall be made righteous’ (Lid.) ; the whole context (ia wav ordpa 


III. 21-26. | THE NEW Si/STEM 81 


dpayh, imddixos, évimoy airov) has reference to a judicial trial and 
verdict. 

mdoa odp§: man in his weakness and frailty (1 Cor.i. 29; 1 Pet. 
i. 24). 

éniyvwous : ‘clear knowledge’; see on i. 28, 32. 


THE NEW SYSTEM. 


III. 21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. 
Lu it ts offered a Righteousness which comes from God but 
embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the 
part of God. This righteousness, (i) though attested by the 
Sacred Books, ts independent of any legal system (ver. 21); 
(ii) 2¢ 7s apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as’ 
man’s need (vv. 22, 23); (iii) 22 ts made possible by the 
propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (vv. 24, 25); which Sacrifice 
at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin 
and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness 
(vv. 25, 26). 


"It is precisely such a method which is offered in Christianity. 
‘We have seen what is the state of the world without it. But now, 
since the coming of Christ, the righteousness of God has asserted 
itself in visible concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same 
time a means of acquiring righteousness to man —and that in 
complete independence of law, though the Sacred Books which 
contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to 
it. This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn 
upon works but on faith, i.e. on ardent attachment and devotion to 
Jesus Messiah. And it is therefore no longer confined to any 
particular people like the Jews, but is thrown open without distinc- 
tion to all, on the sole condition of believing, whether they be Jews 
or Gentiles. *The universal gift corresponds to the universal need. 
All men alike have sinned ; and all alike feel themselves far from 
the bright effulgence of God’s presence. ™Yet estranged as they 
are God accepts them as righteous for no merit or service of theirs, 
by an act of His own free favour, the change in their relation to 
Him being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the 
Death of Christ Jesus. **When the Messiah suffered upon the 

G 


82 EPISTLE [0 THE ROMANS [ITI. 21, 


Cross it was God Who set Him there as a public spectacle, to 
be viewed as a Mosaic sacrifice might be viewed by the crowds as- 
sembled in the courts of the Temple. The shedding of His Blood 
was in fact a sacrifice which had the effect of making propitiation 
or atonement for sin, an effect which man must appropriate through 
faith. The object of the whole being by this public and decisive 
act to vindicate the righteousness of God. In previous ages the 
sins of mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment 
or atonement : * but this long forbearance on the part of God had in 
view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which 
He purposed to enact when the hour should come as now it has 
come, so as to reveal Himself in His double character as at once 
righteous Himself and pronouncing righteous, or accepting as 
righteous, the loyal follower of Jesus. 


21. vuvi 8€: ‘now,’ under the Christian dispensation. Mey. De 
W. Oltr. Go. and others contend for the rendering ‘as it is,’ on the 
ground that the opposition is between two sfa/es, the state under 
Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or 
relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order 
of time; so that wi may well have its first and most obvious 
meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom. xvi. 
25, 26 pvornpiov... pavepwbertos ays viv, Eph. il, Fa; 13 vot 
De sayreine eyevnOnre € éyyus, Col. i. 26, a) puarhpioy TO diroxexpuppévoy eee 
viv d€ ehavepwbn, 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 xapw thy Sobeicay . . . mpd xpdvar 
aiaviey gavepwleicay Sé viv, Heb. ix. 26 vuri d€ dak emi ovvredeia 
Tov aiavev . . . meavéporat. It may be observed (i) that the Ni. 
writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian 
dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the 
passages already enumerated Acts xvii. 30; Gal. iii, 23, 25, 
iv. 3, 4; Heb. i. 1); and (ii) that Gavepotcdu is constantly used 
with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. i. 3 
karpois idios, I Pet. i. 20 én éeoxdrov trav xpdvev). The leading 
English commentators take this view. 

An allusion of Tertullian’s makes it probable that Marcion retained this 
verse ; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he 


cut out the whole of ch. iv, along with most other references to the history 
of Abraham (Tert. on Gal. iv. 21-26, Adv. Marc. v. 4). 


xepis vopou: apart from law,’ ‘ independently of it,’ not as 
a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative 
for Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom. x. 4). 

Sixatoovvy Ocod: see onch. i. 17. St. Paul goes on to define 
his meaning. ‘The righteousness which he has in view is essen- 


THE NEW SYSTEM 83 


tially the righteousness of God ; though the aspect in which it is 
tegarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is 
the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, work- 
ing its way to larger realization amongst men. One step in this 
realization, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of 
Christ for sin (ver. 25); the next step is the subjective appre- 
hension of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the 
believer (ver. 22). Under the old system the only way laid down 
for man to attain to righteousness was by the strict performance 
of the Mosaic Law ; now that heavy obligation is removed and a 
shorter but at the same time more effective method is substituted, 
the method of attachment to a Divine Person. 


®wepavépwrat, Contrast the completed qarépwois in Christ and 
the continued dmoxd\vyis in the Gospel (ch. i. 16): the verb 
gavepotc Ga is regularly used for the Incarnation with its accompani- 
ments and sequents as outstanding facts of history prepared in the 
secret counsels of God and at the fitting moment ‘manifested’ to 
the sight of men; so, of the whole process of the Incarnation, 
1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Jo. iii. 5, 8: of the 
Atonement, Heb. ix. 26: of the risen Christ, Mark xvi. 12, 14; 
John xxi. 14: of the future coming to Judgement, 1 Pet. v. 4; 
1 Jo. ii. 28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of 
the manifestation of Divine ‘righteousness’ are 2 Tim. i. 10, which 
speaks of a like manifestation of Divine ‘grace,’ and 1 Jo. i. 2, 
which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the 
principle of ‘ life.’ 

paptupoupévy «.t.&.: another instance of the care with which 
St. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary 
to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and 
provided for: cf. Rom. i. 2, iii. 31, the whole of ch. iv, ix. 25-33; 
X. 16-21; xi. I-10, 26-29; xv. 8-12; xvi. 26 &c. 

22. 8€ turns to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness 
which the Apostle here wishes to bring out; it is righteousness 
apprehended by faith in Christ and embracing the body of believers. 
The particle thus introduces a nearer definition, but in itself only 
marks the transition in thought which here (as in ch. ix. 30; 1 Cor. 
ii. 6; Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 8) happens to be from the general to the 
particular. 

miotews “Incod Xpiorod: gen. of object, ‘faith in Jesus Christ.’ 
This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has 
however been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out 
argument by Prof. Haussleiter of Greifswald (Der Glaube Jesu 
Christi u. der christliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891). 

Dr. Haussleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like 


the ‘faith of Abraham’ in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God) which 
Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of tke Crucifixion, that 


84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [III. 22, 23. 


this faith is here put forward as the central feature of the Atonement, and 
that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner 
to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. If this view held 
good, a number of other passages (notably i. 17) would be affected by it. 
But, although ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages 
seems to us forced; the theory brings together things, like the miovts Ijaov 
Xp:orov here with the micr:s @cod in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and 
it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance. 

Incot Xpiorod. B, and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian, 
drop "Ingov (so too WH. marg.); A reads év Xpiat& "Inaod. 

kal émt mavtas om. N* ABC, 47. 67**, Boh. Acth. Arm., Clem.-Alex. 
Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug.: ins DEFGKL &c. ém adytas alone is 
found in Jo. Damasc. Vulg. codd., so that els mavras wat émi mévras would 
seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alterna- 
tives. If it were the true reading els would express ‘destination for’ all 
believers, émi ‘extension to’ them. 


23. ob ydp éort Siactokn. The Apostle is reminded of one of 
his main positions. The Jew has (in this respect) no real advantage 
over the Gentile; both alike need a righteousness which is not their 
own; and to.both it is offered on the same terms. 

jjpaptov. In English we may translate this ‘have sinned’ in 
accordance with the idiom of the language, which prefers to use 
the perfect where a past fact or series of facts is not separated by 
a clear interval from the present: see note on ii. 12. 

éotepoivrar: see Monro, Homeric Grammar, § 8 (3); mid. voice = 
‘feel want.’ Gif. well compares Matt. xix. 20 ri ér torepd; 
(objective, ‘What, as a matter of fact, is wanting to me?’) with 
Luke xv. 14 kali airos fpéuto torepeicba (subjective, the Prodigal 
begins to_/ee/ his destitution). 

tis 86gms. There are two wholly distinct uses of this word: 
(1) = ‘opinion’ (a use not found in N. T.) and thence in 
particular ‘favourable opinion,’ ‘reputation’ (Rom. ii. 7, 10; 
John xii. 43 &c.); (2) by a use which came in with the 
LXX as translation of Heb. i233 = (i) ‘visible brightness or 
splendour’ (Acts xxii. 11; 4 Cor. xv. 40 ff.); and hence 
(ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God, 
the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Ex. 
xxiv. 16), in the pillar of cloud (Ex. xvi. ro), .in the tabernacle 
(Ex. xl. 34) or temple (1 Kings viii. 11; 2 Chron. v. 14), and 
specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. Ixxx. 1; 
Ex. xxv. 22; Rom. ix. 4 &c.); (iii) this visible splendour 
symbolized the Divine perfections, ‘the majesty or goodness of 
God as manifested to men’ (Lightfoot on Col. i. 11; comp. Eph. 
i. 6, 12, 17; iii. 16); (iv) these perfections are in a measure 
communicated to man through Christ (esp. 2 Cor. iv. 6, 
iii 18). Both morally and physically a certain transfiguration 
takes place in the Christian, partially here, completely hereafter 
(comp. e.g. Rom. viii. 30 ¢édéfasev with Rom. v. 2 ém’ eAmids ris 


III. 23, 24.] THE NEW SYSTEM 85 


dd£ns tod Ocod, vill. 18 THY wEeAAovoay Séav droxatvPbjva, 2 Tim. 
ii. 10 Sd£ns aiwviov), The Rabbis held that Adam by the Fall lost 
six things, ‘the glory, life (immortality), his stature (which was 
above that of his descendants), the fruit of the field, the fruits of 
trees, and the light (by which the world was created, and which 
was withdrawn from it and reserved for the righteous in the world 
to come).’ It is explained that ‘the glory’ was a reflection from 
the Divine glory which before the Fall brightened Adam’s face 
(Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 214). Clearly St. Paul conceives of this 
glory as in process of being recovered: the physical sense is also 
enriched by its extension to attributes that are moral and 
spiritual. 


The meaning of défa in this connexion is well illustrated by 4 Ezr. vii. 42 
(ed. Bensly = vi. 14 O. F. Fritzsche, p. 607], where the state of the blessed 
is described as negue meridiem, neque noctem, neque ante lucem (perth. for 
anteluctum; vid. Bensly ad loc.), neque nitorem, neque claritatem, neque 
lucem, nisi solummodo splendorem claritatis Altissimi [perh. = dnavyacua 
bééns “YYicrov]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Dei fulgebit 
claritas ; Dominus enim erit lux omnium (cf. Rev. xxi. 24). The blessed 
themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God: 
tbid. vv. 97, 98 [ Bensly = 71, 72 O. F. Fritzsche] guomodo incipiet (uédrr«) 
vultus corum fulgere sicut sol, et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilaré 
lumini...festinant enim videre vultum [eius| cut serviunt viventes et 
@ quo incipient gloriost mercedem recipere (cf. Matt. xiii. 43). 


24. Sixatodpevor. The construction and connexion of this word 
are difficult, and perhaps not to be determined with certainty. 
(i) Many leading scholars (De W. Mey. Lips. Lid. Win. Gr. § xlv. 
6b) make d:xacovpevoe mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the 
condition described by torepoivra. In this case there would be 
a slight stress on dwpedv: men are far from God’s glory, decause the 
state of righteousness has to be given them; they do nothing for 
it. But this is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further 
description of icrepotyra is needed. It had already been proved 
by the actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles; and to prove 
it by the gratuitous; SS, Wut tw-caj}cation would be an inversion 
of the logical ord cum and ey ae is taken as = tore- 
povvrat xai Sd:xatovy om this ; he SAyS\ povpevor Oikaovvrar (Tholuck). 
But this is dubior /077um ef poniifice ojyevor is not taken with what 
precedes, but isr, tl. 8, p. 213 Le clause. In that case there is 
an anacoluthon, 5Y for this in Hetly some such phrase as zs 
kavyopeba; (Oltr ‘lest and victim, it is "be harsh, and a connecting 
particle seems! With the Aacrnptov.yd more natural than any of 
these expedier ‘ling,’ in the literal si,, and Ewald, to make od ydp 
... torepoiy 5 0f a point (if we atesis, and to take the nom. 
Sixatotpevor ‘: -p2¢Gero) that the sprinkli.y, 23, but in sense referring 
rather to re> ¢ Which was withdrawn f5 doubt such a construction 
would be +y Of taking Aaorijpuov is | estioned whether it is too 

i gw@rnpior, TeAeoTHptov, xapie 


86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. 24. 


irregular for St. Paul. The Apostle frequently gives a new turn to 
a sentence under the influence of some expression which is really 
subordinate tu the main idea. Perhaps as near a parallel as any 
would be 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19 ovverréuauev Se rov adeApov . . ow 
6 Emawos év TO evayyedio . . . ov pdvoy dé, Ada Kui xe.porornbets (as if 
és emawetra had preceded). 

Swpedv TH adtod xdpitt. Each of these phrases strengthens the 
other in a very emphatic way, the position of avrod further laying 
stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the part 
of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one 
which is mentioned (6:4 ris drohutpaceas), 

amohutpdcews. It is contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that 
Autpdm and dmodvrpdéo in classical Greek = not ‘to pay a ransom,’ 
but ‘to take a ransom,’ ‘to put to ransom,’ or ‘release on ransom,’ 
as a conqueror releases his prisoners (the only example given of 
dmodvtpacts is Plut. Pomp. 24 wodewv alyyahotwy arodutpocas, where 
the word has this sense of ‘ putting to ransom’); (ii) that in LXX 
Avrpovaba is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt, the 
Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (so Ex. vi. 6, 
xv. 13; Deut. vii. 8; ix. 26; xiii. 5, &c.: cf. also dmodurpdce 
Ex. xxi. 8, of the ‘release’ of a slave by her master). ‘The subst. 
dmodvTpworts occurs only in one place, Dan. iv. 30 [29 or 32], LXX 
6 xpdvos pou tis amodutpwceas Abe Of Nebuchadnezzar’s recovery 
from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, Hed. 
p. 296, and Ritschl, Rechéfert. u. Versdhn. ii. 220 ff.) that here and 
in similar passages dod’tpwors denotes ‘ deliverance’ simply without 
any idea of ‘ransom.’ There is no doubt that this part of the 
metaphor might be dropped. But in view of the clear resolution of 
the expression in Mark x. 45 (Matt. xx. 28) Sodvae tiv Wuxqy adroi 
AUrpoy dvri woAdGv, and in r Tim. ii. 6 6 dots éavrov avridutpov tré¢ 
navrov, and in view also of the many passages in which Christians 
are said to be ‘bought,’ or ‘bought with a price’ (1 Cor. vi. 20, 
vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13; 2 Pet. it. 1; Rev, v. 9: cf, Alc 
1 Pet. i. 18, 19), we can hardlates trom the clusion that the idea 
of the Avrpor retains its full f§ resting on Nentical with the run, 
and that both are ways of dd (Ex. xvi. 10), ith of Christ. The 
emphasis is on the cosf of maigs viii. 11; 2 ChW¥e need not press 
the metaphor yet a step furthon the lid of the ae ancients did) to 
whom the ransom or price ‘c-); (iii) this vi: required by that 
ultimate necessity which has sons, ‘the majesty ese of things what 
it has been; but this necessitightfoot on Col. i. 1 powers to grasp 
or gauge. 1ese perfections are 

ugh Christ (esp. 2 
tis év Xpiot@ Tyoot. Wephysically a certain travbe Jes Christi, 
p- 116) the interesting observat partially here, completei{” Xpior@ o1 ev 


Xprot®@ "Incov occurs there is & th R > mts év ‘Inaod or 
éy “Inood Xpiorg. This is sipSarev wit om. V. 2 €® ybinations the 


° 


III. 24, 25.] THE NEW SYSTEM 87 


variants are frequent. It is also what we should expect, brcause év Xpio7@ 
and éy Xpior@ ‘Ino. always relate to the glorified Christ, not to the historic 
Jesus. 


25. mpoé8ero may = either (i) ‘ whom God proposed to Himself,’ 
‘ purposed,’ ‘designed’ (Orig. Pesh.); or (ii) ‘whom God set forth 
publicly’ (sroposuzt Vulg.). Both meanings would be in full ac- 
cordance with the teaching of St. Paul both elsewhere and in this 
Epistle. For (i) we may compare the idea of the Divine mpd6ects 
in ch. ix. 11 (viii. 28); Eph, iti. rr (i. 11); 2 Tim. i. 9; also 
1 Pet. i. 20. For (ii) compare esp. Gal. iii. 1 ofs kar’ épOadpyods 
"Inoods Xpictés mpoeypdpyn ecravpwpévos. But when we turn to the 
immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity 
(meavéporat, eis evderEw, mpds thy evderEv) that the latter sense seems 
preferable. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the 
righteousness of God, but a vzszb/e manifestation and one to which 
appeal can be made. 

ikaoryptov: usually subst. meaning strictly ‘place or vehicle of 
propitiation,’ but originally neut. of adj. MAacrnpios (iAacrnproy 
érideua Ex. xxv. 16 [17], where however Gif. takes the two words 
as substantives in apposition). In LXX of the Pentateuch, as in 
Heb. ix. 5, the word constantly stands for the ‘lid of the ark,’ or 
“mercy-seat,’ so called from the fact of its being sprinkled with the 
blood of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. A number of 
the best authorities (esp. Gif. Va. Lid. Ritschl, Rech/fert. u. Versohn. 
ii. 169 ff. ed. 2) take the word here in this sense, arguing (i) that 
it suits the emphatic avrod in ev 76 adrod aiyare; (ii) that through 
LXX it would be by far the most familiar usage; (iii) that the 
Greek commentators (as Gif. has shown in detail) unanimously give 
it this sense; (iv) that the idea is specially appropriate inasmuch as 
on Christ rests the fulness of the Divine glory, ‘the true Shekinah,’ 
and it is natural to connect with His Death the culminating rite in 
the culminating service of Atonement. But, on the other hand, 
there is great harshness, not to say confusion, in making Christ at 
once priest and victim and place of sprinkling. Origen it is true 
does not shrink from this; he says expressly zzvenzes igi/ur. . . esse 
ipsum et propitiaiorium et poniificem et hostiam quae offertur pro 
populo (tn Rom. iii. 8, p. 213 Lomm.), But although there is 
a partial analogy for this in Heb, ix. r1—14, 23-x. 22, where 
Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further 
to identify Him with the acrnpiov, The Christian itacrnpiov, or 
‘place of sprinkling,’ in the literal sense, is rather the Cross. It is 
also something of a point (if we are right in giving the sense of 
publicity to mpocéero) that the sprinkling of the mercy-seat was just 
the one rite which was withdrawn from the sight of the people. 
Another way of taking aornpiov is to supply with it édua on the 
analogy of carnpior, reAeornpwoy, xapioryjpwov. This too is strongly 


. 


88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (III. 25. 


supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. Fri. 
Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of Aaarnptoy 
used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that Maer. 
(subst.) = in a general sense ‘instrument or means of propitiation.’ 
It appears therefore simplest to take it as adj. accus. masc. added 
as predicate to é6v. There is evidence that the word was current as 
an adj. at this date (iaornpioy priya Joseph. Anff. XVI vii. 1° 
aornpiov Oavdrov 4 Macc. xvii. 22*, and other exx.). The 
objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts 
for very little, because of the extreme rarity of the sacrifice of 
a person. Here however it is just this personal element which is 
most important. It agrees with the context that the term chosen 
should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory 
sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature cf 
such sacrifice. 


The Latin versions do not help us: they give all three renderings, pro- 
pitiatorium, propitiatorem, and propitiationem. Syr. is also ambiguous. 
The Coptic clearly favours the masc. rendering adopted above. 

It may be of some interest to compare the Jewish teaching on the subject 
of Atonement. ‘Whena man thinks, I will just go on sinning and repent 
later, no help is given him from above to make him repent. He who 
thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgive- 
ness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement. 
Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone; offences of 
man against his fellow-man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has 
given satisfaction to his fellow-man’ ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah, 
Tract. Joma, viii. 9, af. Winter u. Wiinsche, /id. Lit. p. 98). We get 
a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, 7ract. Joma, v: ‘R. Ismael 
said, Atonement is of four kinds. He who transgresses a positive command 
and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, “‘ Return, ye back- 
sliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jer. iii. 23 [22]). He who 
transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atone- 
ment held in suspense by his repentance, and the Day of Atonement makes 
it effectual, according to the Scripture, “ For on this day shall atonement be 
made for you” (Lev. xvi. 30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed 
extermination or capital punishment and repents, his repentance and the 
Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense, and suffering 
brings it home, according to the Scripture, ‘‘I will visit their transgression 
with the rod and their iniquity with stripes” (Ps. lxxxix. 33 [32]). But 
when a man profanes the Name of God and repents, his repentance has not 
the power to keep atonement in suspense, and the Day of Atonement has 
not the power to atone, but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone 
one third, sufferings on the remaining days of the year atone one third, and 
the day of death completes the atonement according to the Scripture, 
“Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till you die” (Is. xxii. 14). 
This teaches that the day of death completes the atonement. Sin-offering 
and trespass-offering and death and: the Day of Atonement all being ao 
atonement without repentance, because it is written in Lev. xxiii. 21 (?) 
* Only,” i.e. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement, 
otherwise he obtains no atonement’ (of. cst. p. 154). 


* Some MSS. read here i: ... rod i agrnpiov Tov Gavarou aitay (O. F, 
Fritzsche @d /oc.). 


III. 25.] THE NEW SYSTEM 89 


Sid ris tlotews: Sd ricrews NC*D* FG 67** a/., Tisch. WH. text. 
The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to dia 
miatews “I, X. in ver. 22; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, 
but there is a strong phalanx on the other side; Bis not infallible in such 
company (cf. xi. 6). 


@& 7@ aidtod atuart: not with sicrews (though this would be 
a quite legitimate combination ; see Gif. ad Joc.), but with mpoéero 
iAaerjpiov: the shedding and sprinkling of the blood is a principal 
idea, not secondary. 

The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold. 
The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of 
life (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11; Deut. xii. 23). Hence the death 
of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life; the 
application of the blood was an application of life; and the 
offering of the blood to God was an offering of life. In this lay 
more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott, Zp. Jo. p. 34 ff.; 
Heb. p. 293 f.). 

For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in 
connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected 
below. 

eis €vSergv: eis denotes the final and remote object, mpds the 
nearer object. The whole plan of redemption from its first 
conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God’s 
Righteousness. And the same exhibition of righteousness was 
kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan, viz. the forbearance 
which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the 
punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For evdekwv 
see on ch. ii. 15: here too the sense is that of ‘ proof by an appeal 
to fact.’ 

eis Evdergtv THs Stxatocdvns adtod. In what sense can the Death 
of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It 
demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over 
sin. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act, the 
nature of which we are not able wholly to understand, but whica 
at least presents analogies to the rite of sacrifice, and to that 
particular form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. 
The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical; and its wide diffusion 
showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially 
appropriate to that particular stage in the world’s development. 
Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? The writers of the 
New Testament practically answer, No. The necessity for it still 
existea; the great fact of sin and guilt remained ; there was still the 
same bar to the offering of acceptable worship. To meet this fact 
and to remove this bar, there had been enacted an Event which 
possessed the significance of sacrifice. And to that event the N.T. 
writers appealed as satisfying the conditions which the righteousness 


go EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[III. 25, 26. 


of God required. See the longer Note on ‘The Death of Christ 
considered as a Sacrifice’ below. 

Sia thy mdpecww: not ‘for the remission,’ as AV., which gives 
a somewhat unusual (though, as we shall see on iv. 25, not 
impossible) sense to 6, and also a wrong sense to mapeow, but 
“because of the pretermission, or passing over, of foregone sins.’ 
For the difference between mdpeois and dpeois see Trench, Syn. 
p- 110 ff.: mdpeors =‘ putting aside,’ temporary suspension of 
punishment which may at some later date be inflicted; ageous = 
‘putting away,’ complete and unreserved forgiveness. 


It is possible that the thought of this passage may have been suggested by 
Wisd. xi. 23 [24] wai mapopas duaprnuara dvépmrow els perdvoay. There 
will be found in Trench, of. cit. p. 111, an account of a controversy which 
arose out of this verse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and beginning 
of the seventeenth centuries. 


épaptnpdtwy: as contrasted with dyapria, audprnya = the single 
act of sin, dyapria = the permanent principle of which such an act 
is the expression. 

év TH dvoxq: ev either (i) denotes mofize, as Mey., &c. (Grimm, 
Lex. s. v. é€v, 5 €); or (ii) it is temporal, ‘ during the forbearance of 
God.’ Of these (i) is preferable, because the whole context deals 
with the scheme as it lay in the Divine Mind, and the relation of 
its several parts to each other. 

dvoxy: see on ii. 4, and note that dvoyy is related to mapeors as 
xapts is related to dears. 

26. mpds Thy évSecv: to be connected closely with the preceding 
clause: the stop which separates this verse from the last should be 
wholly removed, and the pause before 8a rjv mapeow somewhat 
lengthened; we should represent it in English by a dash or semi- 
colon. We may represent the various pauses in the passage in some 
such way as this: ‘Whom God set forth as propitiatory—through 
faith—in His own blood—for a display of His righteousness ; 
because of the passing-over of foregone sins in the forbearance of 
God with a view to the display of His righteousness at the present 
moment, so that He might be at once righteous (Himself) and 
declaring righteous him who has for his motive faith in Jesus.’ Gif. 
seems to be successful in proving that this is the true construction : 
(i) otherwise it is difficult to account for the change of the preposi- 
tion from eis to mpés; (ii) the art. is on this view perfectly accounted 
for, ‘the same display’ as that just mentioned ; (iii) rév mpoyeyo- 
voTwy dpaptnudrwy seems to be contrasted with ev to viv xaipa ; (iv) the 
construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St. Paul’s style 
elsewhere: see Gifford’s note and compare the passage quoted 
Eph. iil. 3- 5» also Rom. iii. 7, 8, ii. 14-16. 

Sikatoy kal Sixatodvra. This is the key-phrase which establishes 
the connexion between the dsxaocivn Geod, and the dxawown ee 


III. 21-26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 9! 


miotews. It is not that ‘God is righteous and yet declares righteous 
the believer in Jesus,’ but that ‘ He is righteous and also, we might 
almost say and therefore, declares righteous the believer.’ The 
words indicate no opposition between justice and mercy. Rather 
that which seems to us and which really is an act of mercy is the 
direct outcome of the ‘righteousness’ which is a wider and more 
adequate name than justice. It is the essential righteousness of 
God which impels Him to set in motion that sequence of events in 
the sphere above and in the sphere below which leads to the free 
forgiveness of the believer and starts him on his way with a clean 
page to his record. 

Tov ék miotews: ‘him whose ruling motive is faith’; contrast 
oi €€ épeias ch. ii. 8 3 doo e& ~»ywr vdyou (‘as many as depend on 
works of law’) Gal. iii. 10. 


The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice. 


It is impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea 
(1) of a sacrifice ; (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. In any 
case the phrase év rT adrovd atuare carries with it the idea of sacrificial 
bloodshedding. And whatever sense we assign to iNaornpiov— 
whether we directly supply @dua, or whether we supply eri@eua and 
regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat, or whether we take it as 
an adj.in agreement with 6év—the fundamental idea which underlies 
the word must be that of propitiation. And further, when we ask, 
Who is propitiated? the answer can only be ‘God.’ Nor is it 
possible to separate this propitiation from the Death of the Son. 

Quite apart from this passage it is not difficult to prove that these 
two ideas of sacrifice and propitiation lie at the root of the teaching 
not only of St. Paul but of the New Testament generally. Before 
considering their significance it may be well first to summarize this 
evidence briefly. 

(1) As in the passage before us, so elsewhere, the stress which is 
laid on aiva is directly connected with the idea of sacrifice. We 
have it in St. Paul, in Rom. v. 9; Eph. i. 7, ii. 13 ; Col. i. 20 (84 rod 
aiyatos Tov oraupov). We have it for St. Peter in 1 Pet. i. 2 (pavticpiv 
aivatos) and 19 (ripio atuart os duvod duapov kai doridov). For 
St. John we have it in 1 Jo. i, 7, and inv. 6, 8. It also comes 
out distinctly in several places in the Apocalypse (i. 5, v. 9, vii. 14, 
xii. Ir, xiii. 8). It is a leading idea very strongly represented in 
Ep. to Hebrews (especially in capp. ix, x, xiii). There is also the 
strongest reason to think that this Apostolic teaching was suggested 
by words of our Lord Himself, who spoke of His approaching 
death in terms proper to a sacrifice such as that by which the First 
Coveuant had been inaugurated (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 25 with Matt. 
xxvi 28; Mark xiv. 24 [perhaps not Luke xxii. 20]). 


92 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IIL 21-26. 


Many of these passages besides the mention of bloodshedding 
and the death of the victim (Apoc. v. 6, 12, xili. 8 dpviov eogaypevov : 
cf. v. g) call attention to other details in the act of sacrifice (e. g. 
the sprinkling of the blood, pavricpds 1 Pet. i. 2; Heb. xii. 24: 
cf. Heb. ix. 13, 19, 21). 

We observe also that the Death of Christ is compared not only 
to one but to several of the leading forms of Levitical sacrifice: te 
the Passover (John i. 29, xix. 36; 1 Cor. v. 8, and the passages 
which speak of the ‘lamb’ in 1 Pet. and Apoc.); to the sacrifices 
of the Day of Atonement (so apparently in the passage from which 
we start, Rom. iii. 25, also in Heb. 1i. 17; ix. 12, 14, 15, and 
perhaps 1 Jo. ii. 2,iv. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 24); to the ratification of the 
Covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, "&e.; Heb. ix. 15-22); to the sin-offering 
(Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 18, and possibly if not 
under the earlier head, 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10). 

(2) In a number of these passages as well as in others, both 
from the Epistles of St. Paul and from other Apostolic writings, 
the Death of Christ is directly connected with the forgiveness of 
sins (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28; Acts v. 30 f., apparently; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 
2 Cor. v. 21; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14 and 20; Tit. i. 14; Heb. & 3, 
ix. 28, x, 12°al.; x Pet. ii, 24, ill. 18; 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 16> eee 
The author of Ep. to Hebrews generalizes from the ritual system 
of the Old Covenant that sacrificial bloodshedding is necessary in 
every case, or nearly in every case, to place the worshipper in a 
condition of fitness to approach the Divine Presence (Heb. ix. 22 
kai oxeddv é€v alate mdvta xaGapiCerac kata Tov vomov, Kal xapis 
aiparexxvolas od yiverat apeois), The use of the different words 
denoting ‘propitiation’ is all to the same effect (iAacrnpwy Rom. 
ili. 25 5 iMacuds 1 Jo. ii. 2, iv. 10; idoxeoGa Heb. ii. 17). 


y This strong convergence of Apostolic writings of different and 


varied character seems to show that the idea of Sacrifice as applied 
to the Death of Christ cannot be put aside as a merely passing 
metaphor, but is interwoven with the very weft and warp of 
primitive Christian thinking, taking its start (if we may, trust our 
traditions) from words of Christ Himself. What it all amounts to 
is that the religion of the New Testament, like the religion of the 
Old, has the idea of sacrifice as one of its central conceptions, not 
however scattered over an elaborate ceremonial system but concen- 
trated in a single many-sided and far-reaching act. 

It will be seen that this throws back a light over the Old 
Testament sacrifices—and indeed not only over them but over the 
sacrifices of ethnic religion—and shows that they were something 
more than a system of meaningless butchery, that they had a real 
spiritual significance, and that they embodied deep principles of 
religion in forms suited to the apprehension of the age to which they 
were given and capable of gradual refinement and purification. 


Tit. 21-26.] THE NEW SYSTEM 93 


In this connexion it may be worth while to quote a striking 
passage from a writer of great, if intermittent, insight, who approaches 
the subject from a thoroughly detached and independent stand- 
point. In his last series of Slade lectures delivered in Oxford ( Zhe 
Art of England, 1884, p. 14 f.), Mr. Ruskin wrote as follows: 
‘None of you, who have the least acquaintance with the genera! 
tenor of my own teaching, will suspect me of any bias towards the 
doctrine of vicarious Sacrifice, as it is taught by the modern 
Evangelical Preacher. But the great mystery of the idea of 
Sacrifice itself, which has been manifested as one united and 
solemn instinct by all thoughtful and affectionate races, since the 
world became peopled, is founded on the secret truth of benevolent 
energy which all men who have tried to gain it have learned—that 
you cannot save men from death but by facing it for them, nor 


from sin but by resisting it forthem . . . Some day or other 
—probably now very soon—too probably by heavy afflictions of 
the State, we shall be taught . . . that all the true good and 


glory even of this world—not to speak of any that is to come, must 
be bought still, as it always has been, with our toil, and with our 
tears.’ 

After all the writer of this and the Evangelical Preacher whom 
he repudiates are not so very far apart. It may be hoped that the 
Preacher too may be willing to purify his own conception and to 
strip it of some quite unbiblical accretions, and he will then find 
that the central verity for which he contends is not inadequately 
stated in the impressive words just quoted. 

The idea of Vicarious Suffering is not the whole and not 
perhaps the culminating point in the conception of Sacrifice, for 
Dr. Westcott seems to have sufficiently shown that the centre of 
the symbolism of Sacrifice lies not in the death of the victim but 
in the offering of its life. This idea of Vicarious Suffering, which is 
nevertheless in all probability the great difficulty and stumbling 
block in the -way~of the acceptance ‘of Bible teaching on this head, 
was revealed once and for all time in Isaiah liiii No one who 
reads that chapter with attention can fail to see the profound truth 
which lies behind it—a truth which seems to gather up in one all 
that is most pathetic in the world’s history, but which when it has 
done so turns upon it the light of truly prophetic and divine inspira- 
tion, gently lifts the veil from the accumulated mass of pain and 
sorrow, and shows beneath its unspeakable value in the working out 
of human redemption and regeneration and the sublime consolations 
by which for those who can enter into them it is accompanied. 

I said that this chapter gathers up in one all that is most pathetic 
in the world’s history. It gathers it up as it were in a single 
typical Figure. We look at the lineaments of that Figure, and 
then we transfer our gaze and we recognize them all translated 


94 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [III. 27-31 


from idea into reality, and embodied in marvellous perfection upon 
Calvary. 

Following the example of St. Paul and St. John and the Epistle 
to the Hebrews we speak of something in this great Sacrifice, which 
we call ‘ Propitiation.’ We believe that the Holy Spirit spoke 
through these writers, and that it was His Will that we should use 
this word. But it is a word which we must leave it to Him to 
interpret. We drop our plummet into the depth, but the line 
attached to it is too short, and it does not touch the bottom. The 
awful processes of the Divine Mind we cannot fathom. Sufficient 
for us to know that through the virtue of the One Sacrifice our 
sacrifices are accepted, that the barrier which Sin places between us 
and God is removed, and that there is a ‘ sprinkling’ which makes 
us free to approach the throne of grace. 

This, it may still be objected, is but a ‘fiction of mercy.’ All 
mercy, all forgiveness, is of the nature of fiction. It consists in 
treating men better than they deserve. And if we ‘being evil’ 
exercise the property of mercy towards each other, and exercise it 
not rarely out of consideration for the merit of someone else than 
the offender, shall not our Heavenly Father do the same? 


CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM. 


III. 27-31. Hence it follows (1) that no claim can be 
made on the ground of human merit, for there is no merit 
in Faith (vv. 27, 28); (2) that few and Gentile are on the 
same footing, for there is but one God, and Faith ts the only 
means of acceptance with Him (vv. 29, 30). 

An objector may say that Law is thus abrogated. On the 
contrary its deeper principles are fulfilled, as the history of 
Abraham will show (ver. 31). 


7 There are two consequences which I draw, and one that an 
objector may draw, from this. The first is that such a method of 
obtaining righteousness leaves no room for human claims or merit. 
Any such thing is once for all shut out. For the Christian system 
is not one of works—in which there might have been room for 
merit—but one of Faith. ** Thus (odv, but see Cri#. WVo/e) we believe 
that Faith is the condition on which a man is pronounced righteous, 
and not a round of acts done in obedience to law. 

* The second consequence [already hinted at in ver. 22] is that 


III. 27, 28.] CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM 95 


Jew and Gentile are on the same footing. If they are not, then 
God must be God of the Jews in some exclusive sense in which 
He is not God of the Gentiles. *°Is that so? Not if I am right 
in affirming that there is but one God, Who requires but one 
condition—Faith, on which He is ready to treat as ‘righteous’ 
alike the circumcised and the uncircumcised—the circumcised with 
whom Faith is the moving cause, and the uncircumcised with whom 
the same Faith is both moving cause and sole condition of their 
acceptance. 

*! The objector asks: Does not such a system throw over Law 
altogether? Far from it. Law itself (speaking through the Penta- 
teuch) lays down principles (Faith and Promise) which find their 
true fulfilment in Christianity. 


27. é§ex\eioOn: an instance of the ‘summarizing’ force of the 
aorist ; ‘it is shut out once for all,’ ‘ by one decisive act.’ 
St. Paul has his eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than upon its 


continued result. In English it is more natural to us to express decisiveness 
by laying stress upon the result—‘ #s shut out.’ 


16 trolou vopou : vowou here may be paraphrased ‘ system,’ ‘ Law’ 
being the typical expression to the ancient mind of a ‘ constituted 
order of things.’-—-Under what kind of system is this result obtained ? 
Under a system the essence of which is Faith. 

Similar metaphorical uses of vézos would be ch. vii. 21, 23; viii. a; x. 31, 
on which see the Notes. 

28. odv recapitulates and summarizes what has gone before. 
The result of the whole matter stated briefly is that God declares 
righteous, &c. But it must be confessed that ydp gives the better 
sense. We do not want a summary statement in the middle of an 
argument which is otherwise coherent. The alternative reading, 
Aoyi(ducOa ydp, helps that coherence. [The Jew’s] boasting is 
excluded, decause justification turns on nothing which is the peculiar 
possession of the Jew but on Faith. And so Gentile and Jew are 
on the same footing, as we might expect they would be, seeing 
that they have the same God. 

ov BCD¢K LP &c.; Syrr. (Pesh.-Harcl.); Chrys. Theodrt. a/.; Weiss 

RV. WH. marg.: yap NAD*EFG al. plur.; Latt. (Vet.-Vulg.) Boh. 
Arm. ; Orig.-lat. Ambrst. Aug.; Tisch. WH. text RV. marg. The evidence 
for yap is largely Western, but it is combined with an element (N A, Boh.) 
which in this instance is probably not Western; so that the reading would 
be carried back beyond the point of divergence of two most ancient lines of 
text. On the other hand B admits in this Epistle some comparatively late 
readings (cf. xi. 6) and the authorities associated with it are inferior (BC in 
£p. is not so strong a combination as BC in Gospp.). We prefer the 
reading yap. 


96 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [III. 28-81 


Sixatodcfar: we must hold fast to the rendering ‘is declared 
righteous,’ not ‘is made righteous’; cf. on i. 17. 

GvOpwrov: any human being. 

29. 7 presents, but only to dismiss, an alternative hypothesis on 
the assumption of which the Jew might still have had something to 
boast of. In rejecting this, St. Paul once more emphatically 
asserts his main position. There is but one law (Faith), and there 
is but one Judge to administer it. Though faith is spoken of in 
this abstract way it is of course Christian faith, faith in Christ. 

povov: pévov B al. plur., WH. marg.; perhaps assimilated to “Iovdalew 

e.. kal eOvav, 

30. eimep : decisively attested in place of éweizep. The old distinction 
drawn between ef wep and ef ye was that ef wep is used of a condition which 
is assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed, ef ye 
of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann 
on Viger, p. 831; Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 64). It is doubtful 
whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek; it can hardly hold for 
N.T. But in any case both ef wep and ef ye lay some stress on the condition, 
as a condition: cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, §§ 353, 354 ‘The Particle 
nép is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition 7ép, which in its adverbial 
use has the meaning beyond, exceedingly. Accordingly mép is intensive, 
denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree, in 
its fullest sense, &c. ... ye is used like 7ép to emphasize a particular word 
or phrase. It does not however z#tensify the meaning, or insist on the fact 
as true, but only calls attention to the word or fact... . In a Conditional 
Protasis (with 6s, dre, ef, &c.), ye emphasizes the condition as such: hence 
et ye tf only, always supposing that. On the other hand ef mep means 
supposing ever so much, hence if really (Lat. st quidem). 


éx miotews ... Sta THs TloTEws: &x denotes ‘ source,’ did ‘ attend- 
ant circumstances.’ The Jew is justified é« miorews dia mepirouns : 
the force at work is faith, the channel through which it works is 
circumcision. The Gentile is justified ek micrews kat da THs mioTeas : 
no special channel, no special conditions are marked out; faith is 
the one thing needful, it is itself ‘ both law and impulse.’ 

Sia THs mlotews = ‘the same faith, ‘the faith just men- 
tioned.’ 

81. xatapyodpev: see on ver. 3 above. 

vépnov ictdpev. If, as we must needs think, ch. iv contains the 
proof of the proposition laid down in this verse, vézov must = ulti- 
mately and virtually the Pentateuch. But it = the Pentateuch not 
as an isolated Book but as the most conspicuous and representative 
expression of that great system of Law which prevailed everywhere 
until the coming of Christ. 

The Jew looked at the O. T., and he saw there Law, Obedience 
to Law or Works, Circumcision, Descent from Abraham. St. Paul 
said, Look again and look deeper, and you will see—not Law but 
Promise, not works but Faith—of which Circumcision is only the 
seal, not literal descent from Abraham but spiritual descent All 
these things are realized in Christianity, 


IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 97 


And then further, whereas Law (all Law and any kind of 
Law) was only an elaborate machinery for producing right action, 
there too Christianity stepped in and accomplished, as if with the 
stroke of a wand, all that the Law strove to do without success 
(Rom. xiii, 10 mAjpopa ody vépou 4 aydmq Compared with Gal. v. 6 
swloris 3: ayamns évepyouper). 


THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM. 


Iv. 1-8. Take the crucial case of Abraham. He, like 
the Christian, was declared righteous, not on account of his 
works—as something earned, but by the free gift of God in 
response to his faith. And David describes a similar state 
of things. The happiness of which he speaks is due, not to 
sinlessness but to God's free forgiveness of sins. 


1 Osyector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely 
he, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead 
privilege and merit. *If we Jews are right in supposing that God 
accepted him as righteous for his works—those illustrious acts of 
his—he has something to boast of. 

Sr. Paut. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. 
* For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scrip- 
ture, Gen. xv. 6. What do we find there? Nothing about works, 
but ‘Abraham put faith in God,’ and it (i. e. his faith) was credited 
to him as if it were righteousness. 

“This proves that there was no question of works. For a work- 
man claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of 
favour. *But to one who is not concerned with works but puts 
faith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous 
(in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly—to 
such an one his faith is credited for righteousness. 

*Just as again David in Ps. xxxii describes how God ‘pro- 
nounces happy ’ (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes 
righteousness without any reference to works: 7‘ Happy they,’ he 
says,—not ‘who have been guilty of no breaches of law,’ but 
‘whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are 
veiled from sight. *A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will 
not enter in His book.’ 


98 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Iv. 1. 


1ff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but 
the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due 
as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with 
the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets him- 
self to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, 
is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. 
But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still 
exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to 
the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was 
a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which 
St. Paul held to be ‘excluded.’ Hitherto these two points have 
been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but 
St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case 
of Abraham. The case of Abraham was the centre and strong- 
hold of the whole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown 
that this case made for the Christian conclusion and not for the 
Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul 
now undertakes to prove; but at the outset he glances at the two 
side issues—main issues in ch. iii which become side issues in 
ch. iv—the claim of ‘advantage,’ or special privilege, and the pride 
which the Jewish system generated. For the sake of clearness we 
put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course 
still a supposed objector; St. Paul is really arguing with himself; 
but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met 
with in actual controversy (see on iii. 1 ff.). 

1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important 
variant turning upon the position or presence of eipynxévat. (1) 
KLP, &c., Theodrt. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which 
are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after ré» 
mporatopa jpov. It is then taken with xara odpxa: ‘ What shall we 
say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace 
of God?’ So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. [Euthym.-Zig. however, 
even with this reading, takes xara capxa with rarépa: trepBardv yap 
ro kata cdpka]. But this is inconsistent with the context. The 
question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or 
without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left 
him any gain or advantage at all. (2) NACDEFG, some cur- 
sives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place 
after ¢potper. In that case xara cdpxa goes not with edpyxéva but 
with rév mpordropa joy which it simply defines, ‘our natural pro- 
genitor.’ (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom 
from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it 
in his text, omit evpyxévae altogether. Then the idea of ‘gain’ 
drops out and we translate simply ‘What shall we say as to 
Abraham our forefather?’ &c. The opponents of B will say that 
the sense thus given is suspiciously easy: it is certainly more 


IV. 1, 2.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 99 


satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is 
not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his 
tighteousness—by the method of works or by that of faith. Does 
the nature of A.’s righteousness agree better with the Jewish 
system, or with St. Paul’s? The idea of ‘gain’ was naturally 
imported from ch. iii. 1, 9. There is no reason why a right reading 
should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating 
position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We 
therefore regard the omission of etpyxévae as probable with WH. 
text Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John i. 15 otros 
iv Ov etrov. 

1-5. One or two small questions of form may be noticed. In ver. 1 
mpomaropa (N*°te A BC*a/.) is decisively attested for marépa, which is 
found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. 3 the acute and sleepless 
critic Origen thinks that St. Paul wrote ABpau (with Heb. of Gen. xv; cf. 
Gen. xvii. 5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the 
text of Scripture substituted ’ABpadu. It is more probable that St. Paul had 
before his mind the established and significant name throughout; he quotes 
Gen. xvii. 5 in ver.17. In ver. 5 a small group (NS D* F G) have doeBny, on 
which form see WH. Jztrod. App. p. 157 f.; Win. Gr. ed. 8, § ix. 8; Tisch. 
on Heb. vi. 19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, but 
not in others. 


tov mpomdtopa Hpav. This description of Abraham as ‘ our fore- 
father’ is one of the arguments used by those who would make the 
majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not 
very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such 
a matter. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were 
undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles, he speaks of ‘ our fathers’ 
as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (1 Cor. x. z). 
There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is 
just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of a// believers, 
Jew and Gentile alike,—though it is true that he would have added 
‘not after the flesh but after the spirit.’ Gif. notes the further point, 
that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with 
Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips. he connects rév mpomdr. jy. 
with xara cdpxa. It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort 
(Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating ctpyxévac to the margin, 
still does not take kara odpxa with rov mpomaropa juav. 

2. xavxnpa: ‘Not matertes gloriandi as Meyer, but rather 
gloriatio, as Bengel, who however might have added facta’ (T. S. 
Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. v. 6). The termination -ya denotes 
not so much the ¢hinmg done as the completed, determinate, act ; 
for other examples see esp. Evans wf sup. It would not be wrong 
to translate here ‘has a ground of boasting,’ but the idea of 
‘ground’ is contained in ¢yet, or rather in the context. 

GAN’ ob mpds Tov Gedy. It seems best to explain the introduction 
of this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the 


100 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Iv. 2, 3. 


paraphrase. There should be a colon after xavynpa. St. Paul 
does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a cavynpa 
absolutely—before man he might have it and the Jews were not 
wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory,— 
but it was another thing to have a xavynpya before God. There is 
a stress upon rév Gedy which is taken up by r6 Ge@ in the quota- 
tion. ‘A. could not boast before God. He might have done so 
if he could nave taken his stand on works ; but works did not 
enter into the question at all. In God he put faith.’ On the 
history and application of the text Gen. xv. 6, see below. 

8. é\oyic§y: metaphor from accounts, ‘ was set down,’ here ‘on 
the credit side.’ Frequently in LXX with legal sense of imputation 
or non-imputation of guilt, e.g. Lev. vii. 8 cay 8€ payday dayy ... ov 
AoyoOjoerar aitH, XVii. 4 oytcOnoera 7TH avOpam@ éxeivp atua, &C. 
The notion arises from that of the ‘book of remembrance’ (Mal. 
iii. 16) in which men’s good or evil deeds, the wrongs and 
sufferings of the saints, are entered (Ps. lvi. 8 ; Is. Ixv. 6). Oriental 
monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the 
merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. vi. 1 ff.), and in like 
manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the ‘books’ 
brought out before Him (Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. 12; comp. also 
‘the books of the living,’ ‘ the heavenly tablets,’ a common expres- 
sion in the Books of noch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Pair., on which 
see Charles on noch xlvii. 3; and in more modern times, 
Cowper’s sonnet ‘ There is a book . . . wherein the eyes of God 
not rarely look’). 

The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews 
(Weber, Adlisyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the 
transference of merit and demerit from one person to another 
(bid. p. 280 ff. ; Ezek. xviii. 2; John ix. 2). That however is not 
in question here; the point is that one quality faith is set down, or 
credited, to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of another 
quality—righteousness. 

€hoyicOn atte eis Stkaroodvny: was reckoned as equivalent to, as 
standing in the place of, ‘righteousness.’ The construction is 
common in LXX: cf. 1 Reg. (Sam.) i. 13; Job xli. 23 (24); Is. 
xxix. 17 (=xxxii. 15); Lam. iv. 2; Hos. viii. 12. The exact 
phrase €doyic@n aitd eis Sexauoa. recurs in Ps. cv [cvi]. 31 of the 
zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. § xxix. 3 a. (p. 229, 
ed. Moulton). 

On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, A//syn. Palast. 
Theologie, p. 255 ff. Abraham was the only righteous man of his 
generation; therefore he was chosen to be ancestor of the holy 
People. He kept all the precepts of the Law which he knew 
beforehand by a kind of intuition. He was the first of seven 
tighteous men whose merit brought back the Shekinah which had 


IV. 3-6.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 101 


retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it 
could take up its abode in the Tabernacle (zd7d. p. 183). According 
to the Jews the original righteousness of Abraham, who began to 
serve God at the age of three (zd7d. p. 118) was perfected (1) by his 
circumcision, (2) by his anticipatory fulfilment of the Law. But 
the Jews also (on the strength of Gen. xv. 6) attached a special 
importance to Abraham’s /azth, as constituting merit (see Mechilta 
on Ex, xiv. 31, quoted by Delitzsch ad Joc. and by Lightfoot in the 
extract given below). 

4, 5. An illustration from common life. The workman earns 
his pay, and can claim it as a right. Therefore when God bestows 
the gift of righteousness, of His own bounty and not as a right, that 
is proof that the gift must be called forth by something other than 
works, viz. by faith. 

5. émt tov Sixarodvra: ‘on Him who pronounces righteous’ or 
‘acquits,’ i.e. God. It is rather a departure from St. Paul’s more 
usual practice to make the object of faith God the Father rather 
than God the Son. But even here the Christian scheme is in view, 
and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative Author of that 
scheme. See on i. 8, 17, above. 

We must not be misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. tovréor: morevovre 

Gre Stvatra 6 Oeds Tov év docBeia BeBiwKdta, ToUTOY efaidyys ov pdvov édev- 

Ocpoat KoAdcews, GAA kal Sixaroy woqoat (comp. the same writer on ver. 25 

Wa dtkaiovs huds monon). The evidence is too decisive (p. 30 f. sp.) that 

d:xarodv = not ‘to make righteous’ but ‘to declare righteous as a judge.’ 

It might however be inferred from éfaipyys that Sixarov tovfoa: was to be 

taken somewhat loosely in the sense of ‘treat as righteous.’ The Greek 

theologians had not a clear conception of the doctrine of Justification. 

tov doeB: not meant as a description of Abraham, from whose 
case St. Paul is now generalizing and applying the conclusion to 
his own time. The strong word dcoe8q is probably suggested by 
the quotation which is just coming from Ps. xxxii. 1. 

6. AaBids (Aaueid). Both Heb. and LXX ascribe Ps. xxxii to 
David. In two places in the N. T., Acts iv. 25, 26 (= Ps. ii. 1, 2), 
Heb. iv. 7 (= Ps. xcv. 7) Psalms are quoted as David’s which have 
no title in the Hebrew (though Ps. xcv [xciv] bears the name of 
David in the LXX), showing that by this date the whole Psalter 
was known by his name. Ps. xxxii was one of those which Ewald 
thought might really be David’s: see Driver, Jntroduction, p. 357. 

Tov pakapiopdv: not ‘blessedness,’ which would be paxapidrns 
but a ‘pronouncing blessed’; paxupifew twa = ‘to call a person 
blessed or happy ’ (rous re yap @cots paxapifouey . . . Kai Tov avdpav 
rovs Geordrous paxapitouev Arist. Eth. Wie. 1. xii. 4; comp. Euthym.- 
Zig. éritacis b€ Kai kopugy Tins Kai Sdéns 6 pakapiopds, ‘ Felicitation is 
the strongest and highest form of honour and praise’). St. Paul 
uses the word again Gal. iv. 15. Who is it “ho thus pronounces a 
man blessed? God. The Psalm describes h»w He does so. 


102 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Iv. 7, & 


7, 8. Maxdptot, «.7.d. This quotation of Ps, xxxii. 1, 2 is the same 
in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his 
interpretation of Gen. xv. 6. 

pakdpror is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek 
could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given 
from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest 
to the gods among men. 


@ovph So NAC D°FKL &c.: of ob ph SBD E(#)G, 67**. of is 
also the reading of LXX (@ N** R*). The authorities for od are superior ag 
they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission 
(& B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that @ has been assimilated 
to the construction of Aoyifec@a in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that od has been 
assimilated to the preceding dr or to the O.T. or that it has been affected 
by the following ob: @ naturally established itself as the more euphonious 
Treading, 


ob ph oyionrat. There is a natural tendency in a declining 
language to the use of more emphatic forms; but here a real 
emphasis appears to be intended, ‘ Whose sin the Lord will in no 
wise reckon’: see Ell. on 1 Thess. iv. 15 [p. 154], and Win. § lvi, 
3» P. 634 f. 


The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul 
and by St. Fames. 


It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament 
writers should use the same leading example and should quote the 
same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. 
Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of 
Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, as the 
salient characterization of that history ; and they draw from it the 
conclusion—St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous wicre: yapis 
épyov (Rom, iii. 28; cf. iv. 1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is 
accounted righteous e& épywy kai ov« éx mictews pdvov (Jas. ii. 24). 

We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. 
Gen. xv. 6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention 
of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham’s 
life, the offering of Isaac (Jas. ii. 21). St. Paul also appeals to 
particular incidents, Abraham’s belief in the promise that he should 
have a numerous progeny (Rom. iv. 18), and in the more express 
prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom. iv. 19-21). The difference 
is that St. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own 
spiritual experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the 
Book of Genesis; apd he is therefore able to take it as one of the 
foundations of his system, St. James, occupying aless exceptional 


IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 103 


standpoint, and taking words in the average sense put upon them, 
has recourse to the context of Abraham’s life, and so harmonizes 
the text with the requirements of his own moral sense. 

The fact is that St. James and St, Paul mean different things by 
‘ faith,’ and as was natural they impose these different meanings on 
the Book of Genesis, and adapt the .est of their conclusions to 
them. When St. James heard speak of ‘ faith, he understood by 
it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand 
by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the funda- 
mental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jas. ii. 19). 
Christianity is with him so much a supplement to the Jews’ ordinary 
creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind 
when he is speaking of Abraham. Ofcourse he too believesin the 
‘Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory’ (Jas. ii, 1). He takes that 
belief for granted ; it is the swbs/ratum or basement of life on which 
are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality 
(mpocwmoAnyia). Ifhe were questioned about it, he would put it on 
the same footing as his beltef in God. But St. James was a 
thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a ‘good’ man; and this 
did not satisfy his moral sense. What is belief unless proof is given 
of its sincerity? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line 
of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed 
Matthew Arnold’s proposition that ‘Conduct is three-fourths of 
life” He therefore demands—and from his point of view rightly 
demands—that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting 
them in practice. 

St. Paul’s is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a 
very different experience. With him too Christianity is something 
added to an earlier belief in God; but the process by which it was 
added was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole nature. It 
is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano’s side. 
Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The 
crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ; 
there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such 
an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the 
question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost 
suspect the questioner of attempting to bring back under a new 
name the old Jewish notion of religion as a round of legal 
observance. Of course action will correspond with faith. The 
believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Christ 
and risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his 
power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. St. Paul 
is going on presently to say this (Rom. vi. 1, 12, 15), as his 
opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a 
truism, which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. To say that 
a man is a Christian should be enough. 


104 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Iv. 1-8. 


If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will 
be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that 
either was writing with direct reference to the other? Did St. Paul 
mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert 
St. Paul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had 
had before him the Epistle of St. James, when once he looked 
beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he 
would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He 
would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting 
things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not 
intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment; but 
that would have been all. On the other hand, if St. James had 
seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he 
has written would have been totally inadequate. Whatever value 
his criticism might have had for those who spoke of ‘faith’ as 
a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such 
as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually 
guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was con- 
demning. 

It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meeting- 
ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively 
narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that 
both quote the same verse, Gen. xv. 6, and both treat it with 
reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. 

Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown (Galatians, p. 157 ff., ed. 2) that 
Gen. xv. 6 was a standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. 
It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: ‘Was not 
Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness’ (1 Macc. ii. 52)? It is repeatedly quoted and 
commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The 
whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate 
allegory. The Talmudic treatise Afechi//a expounds the verse at 
length: ‘ Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake 
and the world was. For as a reward for Israel’s having believed in 
the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them . . . In like manner thou 
findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world 
to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the 
Lord ; for it is said, “and he believed in the Lord, and He counted 
it to him for righteousness ”’ (quoted by Lft. u¢ sup. p. 160). Taking 
these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul and 
St. James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to 
this particular text: and it was indeed inevitable that it should be 
so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish 
system and the minute study which was being given to every part of 
the Pentateuch. 

It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason 


IV. 1-8.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 105 


that the two New Testament writers are discussing independently 
of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for 
supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure 
that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the 
bearing of Gen. xv. 6 was a subject of standing debate among the 
Jews but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of 

aith and Works. The controversy connected with this was 
essentially a Christian controversy ; it had its origin in the special 
and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore 
that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that 
controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other. 

It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We 
have seen that there are strong reasons against this*. We do not 
think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or 
St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. The view which appears to us 
the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not 
against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but 
against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted 
construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent 
actually was) put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the 
Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of 
the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were 
constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, 
especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and 
Greece, the scene of St. Paul’s labours; and as there was always 
at his elbow the little co/erze of St. Paul’s fanatical enemies, it would 
be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how 
few of St. Paul’s hearers had really understood him!) and often more 
or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle’s teaching, should 
reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would 
do. He names no names, and attacks no man’s person. He does 
not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true 
reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view 
of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him 
to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places 
like Rom. vi. 1 ff., 15 ff., shows to have been really needed. And 
thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, 
suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are 
stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of 
action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, 
though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer 


® Besides what is said above, see Introduction § 8. It is a satisfaction to 
find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, /udadstic 
Christianity, p. 148, ‘it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or 
misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching on the part of others gave rise to 
St. James’s carefully guarded language.’ 


106 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __[IV. 9-12. 


practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing 
to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible 
misconstruction. 


FAITH AND CIRCUMCISION. 


IV. 9-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not 
depend upon Circumcision. For it was made before he was 
circumcised ; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, 
to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being that 
Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the un- 
circumcised as well as the circumcised. 


*Here we have certain persons pronounced ‘happy.’ Is 
this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also 
apply to the uncircumcised Gentile? Certainly it may. For there 
is no mention of circumcision. It is his faz/h that we say was 
credited to Abraham as righteousness. “And the historical 
circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing 
to do with it. Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration 
was made to him? No: he was at the time uncircumcised. 
“ And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal 
affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already 
existing, viz. the righteousness based on faith which was his before 
he was circumcised. The reason being that he might be the 
spiritual father alike of two divergent classes: at once of believing 
Gentiles, who though uncircumcised have a faith like his, that they 
too might be credited with righteousness; ** and at the same time 
of believing Jews who do not depend on their circumcision only, 
but whose files march duly in the steps of Abraham’s faith—that 
faith which was his before his circumcision. 


10. St. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine 
recognition of Abraham’s faith came in order of time before his 
circumcision: the one recorded in Gen. xv. 6, the other in 
Gen. xvii. 10 ff. Therefore although it might be (and was) 
confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned 
by it. 

"iL onpetov meptropjs. Circumcision at its institution is said to 
be ey onpeig diabgxns (Gen. xvii. 11), between God and the 


Iv. 11] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 107 


circumcised. The gen. rep:ropijs is a genitive of apposition or identity, 
a sign ‘ consisting in circumcision,’ ‘which was circumcision.’ Some 
authorities (A C* a/.) read repiropjy. 

oppayita. The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of 
a child runs thus: ‘Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved 
from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed 
His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant.’ Comp. Targum 
Cant, iii. 8 ‘The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was 
sealed in the flesh of Abraham’; Shemoth R. 19 ‘ Ye shall not eat 
of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.’ 
Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad Joc. (cf. also 
Delitzsch). 

At a very early date the same term o@payis was transferred from 
the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages 
collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 (Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also 
Gebhardt and Harnack ad Joc., and Hatch, Abert Lectures, 
p- 295. Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with ‘the 
mysteries and some forms of foreign cult’; and it may have 
coalesced with language borrowed from these; but in its origin it 
appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das 
antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum 
(Gottingen, 1894), p. 120 ff., where the Christian use of the word 
ofpayis is fully discussed. 


Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refute, the Jewish doctrine which 
he puts in the mouth of an objector: GAA’ épeis’ Kal pry mepitétpnta 6 
Aads eis oppayida. GAA TGs Sdpos kal” Apay nal waves of icpels THY cidwrow. 
Gpa ovv Kdkeivor &k THs SiaOnKns adTay eciciv; GAG Kal of Aiyimtiot év Tepi- 
Topy eiciv, The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved 
that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant. 


eis Td etvat, x.7.A. Even circumcision, the strongest mark of 
Jewish separation, in St. Paul’s view looked beyond its immediate 
exclusiveness to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews. 
It was nothing more than a ratification of Abraham’s faith. Faith 
was the real motive powe1 ; and as applied to the present condition 
of things, Abraham’s faith in the promise had its counterpart in the 
Christian’s faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i.e. in Christ). 
Thus a new division was made. The true descendants of Abra- 
ham were not so much those who imitated his circumcision (i.e. 
all Jews whether believing or not), but those who imitated his 
faith (i.e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles). «is ré denotes 
that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose. 

twatépa wdvtwv tov moteudytwv. Delitzsch (ad Joc.) quotes one 
of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is 
called ‘the first of my faithful ones.’ He also adduces a passage, 
Jerus. Gemara on Biccurim, i. 1, in which it is proved that even 
the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his M°DiIN because 


108 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. 11, 12 


Abram became Abraham, ‘father of inany nations,’ lit. ‘a great 
multitude’; ‘he was so,’ the Glossator adds, ‘ because he taught 
them to believe.’ 

Sv dxpoBuotias: ‘though in a state of uncircumcision.’ 8 of 
attendant circumstances as in 84 ypdyparos kcal mepstopas ii, 27, TO 
61a mpookoupatos eoOlovte XiV. 20. 

12. tots etotxodor. As it stands the art. is a solecism: it would 
make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who 
follow the example of Abraham’s faith another distinct set, which 
is certainly not St. Paul’s meaning. He is speaking of Jews who 
are both circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the 
omission of the art. before cro:yotow. But rois or. is found in all 
existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (1) that there 
has been some corruption. WH. think that rots may be the 
remains of an original avrois: but that would not seem to be a very 
natural form of sentence. Or (2) we may thinkahat Tertius made 
a slip of the pen in following St. Paul’s dictation, and that this 
remained uncorrected. If the slip was not made by Tertius 
himself, it must have been made in some very early copy, the 
parent of all our present copies. 

oToxodor. orvyxe is a well-known military term, meaning 
strictly to ‘march in file’: Pollux viii. 9 rd d¢ BaOos oroixos kadeirat, 
kai TO pev etheéns eivar Kata pjkos Cuyeiv" Oo dé epekns xara Babos oraryety, 
‘the technical term for marching abreast is {vyeiv, for marching in 
depth or in file, croryeiv’ (Wets.). 


On ov povov rather than yp) pévoy in this verse and in ver. 16 see Burton, 
M. and T. § 481. 


Fewish Teaching on Circumcision. 


The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite 
of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book of Jubilees 
(xv. 25 ff.): ‘This law is for all generations for ever, and there is 
no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of 
the eight days; for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and written 
on the heavenly tables. And every one that is born, the flesh of 
whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to 
the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, 
for he belongs to the children of destruction ; nor is there moreover 
any sign on him that he is the Lord’s, but (he is destined) to be 
destroyed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the 
earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God... 
And now I will announce unto thee that the children of Israel will 
not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their 
sons accordmg to all this law; for in the flesh of their circumcision 


IV. 13-17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 109 


they will omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, sons 
of Belial, will have their sons uncircumcised as they were born. 
And there shall be great wrath from the Lord against the children 
of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned away 
from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, according as they 
have not opserved the ordinance of this law; for they treat their 
members like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted 
out of the land. And there will be no pardon or forgiveness for 
them, so that there should be pardon and release from all the sin 
of this error for ever.’ 

So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of God’s favour that if an 
Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be 
removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber, Alfsyn. Theol. 
p. 51 f.). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took 
a part in the act (zd¢d. p. 253). It was his circumcision and antici- 
patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the 
‘father of many nations’ (dz. p. 256). Indeed it was just through 
his circumcision that Isaac was born of a ‘holy seed.’ This was 
the current doctrine. And it was at the root of it that St. Paul 
strikes by showing that Faith was prior to Circumcision, that the 
latter was wholly subordinate to the former, and that just those 
privileges and promises which the Jew connected with Circumcision 
were really due to Faith. 


PROMISE AND LAW. 


IV. 18-17. Again the declaration that was made to 
Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For it turned on 
Faith and Promise which are the very antithesis of Law. 
The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual 
Sather of all believers, Gentiles as well as Fews, and that 
Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise. 


8 Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews. 
The promise made to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide 
Messianic rule, as it was not dependent upon Circumcision, so also 
was not dependent upon Law, but on a righteousness which was 
the product of Faith. “If this world-wide inheritance really 
depended upon any legal system, and if it was limited to those who 
were under such a system, there would be no place left for Faith 
or Promise: Faith were an empty name and Promise a dead letter. 
*’For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. It only 


110 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Iv. 13 


serves to bring down God’s wrath by enhancing the guilt of sin. 
Where there is no law, there is no transgression, which implies_ 
a law to be transgressed. Law and Promise therefore are mutually 
exclusive; the one brings death, the other life. Hence it is that 
the Divine plan was made to turn, not on Law and obedience to 
Law, but on Faith. For faith on man’s side implies Grace, or free 
favour, on the side of God. So that the Promise depending as it 
did not on Law but on these broad conditions, Faith and Grace, 
might hold good equally for all Abraham’s descendants—not only 
for those who came under the Mosaic Law, but for all who could 
lay claim to a faith like his. ™Thus Abraham is the true ancestor 
of al) Christians (jv), as it is expressly stated in Gen. xvii. 5 
‘A father’ (i.e. in spiritual fatherhood) ‘of many nations have 
I made thee *.’ 


13-17. In this section St. Paul brings up the key-words of his 
own system Faith, Promise, Grace, and marshals them in array 
over against the leading points in the current theology of the 
Jews—-Law, Works or performance of Law, Merit. Because the 
working of this latter system had been so disastrous, ending only 
in condemnation, it was a relief to find that it was not what God 
had really intended, but that the true principles of things held out 
a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one which 
furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in 
Christianity. 

13. 0d ydp, x.r.A4. The immediate point which this paragraph 
is introduced to prove is that Abraham might be, in a true though 
spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. The ulterior 
object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself 
is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but 
by Christians. 

81a vépou: without art., any system of law. 

4 ewayyedia: see on ch. i. 2 (mpoernyyeidaro), where the uses of 
the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. At the 
time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race 
was turned to the promises contained in the O. T.; and in 
Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head 
and definitely identified with their fulfilment. 


The following examples may be added to those quoted on ch. i. 2 to 
illustrate the diffusion of this idea of ‘Promise’ among the Jews in the first 
century A.D.: 4 Ezra iv. 27 nom capiet portare quae in temporibus tustis 


* There is a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of 
2 verse and of a sentence. St. Paul glides after his manner into a new subject, 
suggested to him by the verse which he auotes in proof of what has gone before. 


THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM IIil 


vepromissa sunt; vii. 14 st ergo non ingredientes ingresst fuerint qui vivunt 
angusta et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reposita ( = rd &ro- 
kelueva Gen. xlix. 10) ; 242d. 49 (119) ff. guid enim nobis prodest si pro- 
missum est nobis tmmortale tempus, nos vero mortalia opera egimus? &e. 
Apoc. Baruch. xiv. 13 propter hoc etiam ipsi sine timore relinguunt mun- 
dum istum, et fidentes in laetitia sperant se recepturos mundum quem pro- 
misisti eis, It will be observed that all these passages are apocalyptic and 
eschatological. The Jewish idea of Promise is vague and future; the Chris- 
tian idea is definite and associated with a state of things already inaugurated. 


76 KAnpovépoyv adrév etvat kéopou. What Promise is this? There 
is none in these words. Hence (1) some think that it means the 
possession of the Land of Canaan (Gen. xii. 7; xiii. 14 fi; xv. 18; 
xvii. 8; cf. xxvi. 3; Ex. vi. 4) taken as a type of the world-wide 
Messianic reign; (2) others think that it must refer to the particular 
promise faith in which called down the Divine blessing—that 
A. should have a son and descendants like the stars of heaven. 
Probably this is meant in the first instance, but the whole series 
of promises goes together and it is implied (i) that A. should have 
a son; (ii) that this son should have numerous descendants ; 
(iii) that in One of those descendants the whole world should be 
blessed ; (iv) that through Him A.’s seed should enjoy world-wide 
dominion. 

81a Sixatocdvns tictews: this ‘faith-righteousness’ which St. 
Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and 
before him of Abraham. 

14. ot ék vopou: ‘the dependants of law,’ ‘vassals of a legal system,’ 
such as were the Jews. 

kA\npovépor. If the right to that universal dominion which will 
belong to the Messiah and His people is confined to those who are 
subject to a law, like that of Moses, what can it have to do either 
with the Promise originally given to Abraham, or with Faith to 
which that Promise was annexed? In that case Faith and Promise 
would be pushed aside and cancelled altogether. But they cannot 
be cancelled ; and therefore the inheritance must depend upon them 
and not upon Law. 

15. This verse is parenthetic, proving that Law and Promise 
cannot exist and be in force side by side. They are too much 
opposed in their effects and operation. Law presents itself to 
St. Paul chiefly in this light as entailing punishment. It increases 
the guilt of sin. So long as there is no commandment, the wrong 
act is done as it were accidentally and unconsciously ; it cannot be 
called by the name of transgression. The direct breach of a known 
law is a far more Beinous matter. On this disastrous effect of Law 
gee ili. 20, V. 13, 20, vii. 7 ff. 

15. ov d€ for ov ydp is decisively attested (W A B C &c.). 


wapdBacis is the appropriate word for the direct violation of 


¥IiZz EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined: peccare est 
transilire lineas Cicero, Parad. 3 (ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236). 

16. ék miotews. In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St. Paul 
contents himself with a few bold strokes, which he leaves it to the 
reader to fill in. It is usual to supply with é« miorews either 
) KAnpovonia ear from v. 14 (Lips. Mey.) or 9 érayyedia eorw from 
v. 13 (Fri.), but as ryv émayycAiay is defined just below it seems 
better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include 
both these. ‘It was’=‘ The Divine plan was, took its start, from 
faith.” The bold lines of God’s plan, the Providential ordering 
of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed, 
to the whole chapter. 

eis 76 etvat, Working round again to the same conclusion as 
before; the object of all these pre-arranged conditions was to do 
away with old restrictions, and to throw open the Messianic 
blessings to all who in any true sense could call Abraham ‘father, 
i.e. to believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew. 


ABRAHAW’S FAITH A TYPE OF THE CHRISTIAN’S. 


IV. 17-22. Abraham's Faith was remarkable both for its 
strength and for tts object: the birth of Isaac in which 
Abraham believed might be described as a ‘birth from the 
dead.’ 

23-25. In this it ts a type of the Christian's Faith, to 
which is annexed a like acceptance and which also has for 
tts object a ‘birth from the dead’—the Death and Resur- 
rection of Christ. 


"Tn this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom he is 
1cpresented as standing—that God who infuses life into the dead 
(as He was about to infuse it into Abraham’s dead body), and 
who issues His summons (as He issued it then) to generations 
yet unborn. 

In such a God Abraham believed. Against all ordinary hope 
of becoming a father he yet had faith, grounded in hope, and 
enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of wide- 
spread nations, to whom the Promise alluded when it said (Gen, 
xv. 5) ‘ Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants be.’ 

1 Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note 
of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about 
@ hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed; he toox 


IV. 17.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 113 


full note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife; *and yet with the 
promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate; his 
faith endowed him with the power which he seemed to lack; he 
gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him, 
* having a firm conviction that what God had promised He was 
able also to perform. “And for this reason that faith of his was 
credited to him as righteousness. 

*5 Now when all this was recorded in Scripture, it was not 
Abraham alone who was in view “but we too—the future 
generations of Christians, who will find a like acceptance, as we 
have a like faith. Abraham believed on Him who caused the birth 
of Isaac from elements that seemed as good as dead: and we too 
believe on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our 
Lord, * who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone 
for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i.e. to put 
the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and 
at the same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement 
effectual). 


17. watépa, x.t.A. Exactly from LXX of Gen. xvii. 5. The LXX 
tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the 
Heb., patrem frementis turbae, i.e. ingentis multitudinis populorum 
(Kautzsch, p. 25). 

Katévaytt ov émioteuge Ocod: attraction for xarévavts Ocod S émi- 
arevoe: xarévavre describing the posture in which Abraham is 
represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. xvii. 1 ff.). 

Lwomototvtos: ‘maketh alive.’ St. Paul has in his mind the two 
acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this 
word, (1) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ. On 
the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, Zs. 1% Bzbl. Greek, p. 5. 

kahodyros [ra pu) dvta as dvta]. There are four views: (i) cad.= 
‘to name, speak of, or describe, things non-existent as if they 
existed’ (Va.); (ii) = ‘to call into being, issue His creative fiat’ (most 
commentators); (iii) = ‘to call, or summon,’ ‘issue His commands 
to’ (Mey. Gif.); (iv) in the dogmatic sense = ‘to call, or invite to 
life and salvation’ (Fri.). Of these (iv) may be put on one side as 
too remote from the context; and (ii) as Mey. rightly points out, 
seems to be negatived by as évra. The choice remains between 
(i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the 
more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the 
imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour 
of this view may also be quoted Ajoc. Bar. xxi. 4 O qui fectsti 
ferram audi me. . . qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum erat, et 


114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __[IV. 17-20. 


obediunt tild, For the use of xadeiv see also the note on ix. 7 
below. 

18. eis 18 yevéoOar = Sore yeveobas: ‘his faith enabled him to 
become the father,’ but with the underlying idea that his faith in 
this was but carrying out the great Divine purpose which ordered 
all these events. 

ottws Eerar: = Gen. xv. 5 (LXX). 


19. pry doGevicas. Comp. Lft. in Journ. of Class. and Sac. Philol. 

iii. 106 n.: ‘The New Testament use of 7 with a participle... has a much 

wider range than in the earlier language. Yet this is no violation of 

principle, but rather an extension of a particular mode of looking at the 
subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It is viewed as an 
accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and 
is therefore negatived by the dependent negative yy and not by the absolute ob. 

Rom. iy. 19... is a case in point whether we retain od or omit it with 

Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, ‘‘he so considered his own 

body now dead, as not to be weak in the (?) faith.”’ This is well expressed 

in RV. ‘without being weakened,’ except that ‘ being weakened’ should be 

rather ‘showing weakness’ or ‘becoming weak.’ See also Burton, 1. and T. 

§ 145. 

katevénoe S& ABC some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. 
(including am.), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. (which probably here preserves 
Origen’s Greek), Chrys. and others; od xarevionne DEF GK LP 
&c., some MSS. of Vulg. (including fu/d, though it is more pro- 
bable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that 
it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-Harcl., Orig.-lat. 62s, Epiph. 
Ambrstr. a. 

Both readings give a good sense: xarevdnoe, ‘ he did consider, and 
yet did not doubt’; od xarevénoe, ‘he did mot consider, and ¢herefore 
did not doubt.’ Both readings are also early: but the negative 
ov katevonoe is clearly of Western origin, and must probably be set 
down to Western laxity: the authorities which omit the negative 
are as a rule the most trustworthy. 


trdpxwv: ‘being a/ready about a hundred years old.’ May we not say 
that «fva: denotes a present state simply as present, but that imapyew denotes 
a present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time 
as related to past time (‘vorhandensein, dasein, Lat. extstere, adesse, praesto 
esse’ Schmidt)? See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 26: ‘the 
last word (i7dpyxeiv) is difficult; it seems to mean sometimes “ to be origin- 
ally,” ‘‘to be substantially or fundamentally,” or, as in Demosthenes, “to be 
stored in readiness.” An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp. 
imapfts, “ property” or “substance.” The word however asks for further 
investigation.” Comp. Schmidt, Lat. «. gr. Synonymtk, § 74. 4. 

20. ot Stexpi9y: ‘did not hesitate’ (rourécriw ovdt évedolacev odd? dupe. 
Bade Chrys.). duaxpivew act. =dtiudicare, (i) to ‘discriminate,’ or ‘distinguish’ 
between two things ( Matt. xvi. 3; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31) or persons (Acts xv. 93 
1 Cor. iv. 7); (ii) to ‘arbitrate’ between two parties (1 Cor. vi. 5). dia 
wpivecOac mid. (and pass.) = (i) ‘to get a decision,’ * litigate,’ ‘dispute,’ or 
*contend’ (Acts xi. 2; Jas. ii, 4; Jude 9); (ii) to ‘be divided against one- 
self,’ ‘waver,’ ‘doubt.’ The other senses are all found in LXX (where the 
word occurs some thirty times), but this is wanting. It is however well 


Iv. 20.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 115 


established for N. T., where it appears as the ite of riots 
moreso. So Matt. xxi. 21 édy é iene mioTo, wat p37) Sepak: Wink xi. 23 ds 
dy cizy ... xai HD Saxpilp ev 75 kapoig auTovd GAAG MOTEL : Rom. xiv. 23 6 82 
d.axpivdpevos, éay oay7; KaTaxexpitar, STi ove ex pr aaa Jas. 1. 6 aireire 52 
ev miate undev dvaxpwdpevos : also probably Jude 22. A like use is found in 
Christian writings of the second century and later: e.g. Protev. Jac. 11 
dxovcaga S¢ Mapidu dtexpion & éau7d A€youca, .7.A, (quoted by Mayor on 
Jas. i. 6): Clem, Homil. i. 20 zepi tijs tapadobcions gos ddnGeias SiaxpOycp : 

li. 40 wept Tod povou Kai aya8od Ocod diaxpeO7vat. Tt is remarkable that a use 
which (except as an antithesis to movevew) there is no reason to connect 
specially with Christianity should thus seem to be traceable to Christian 
circles and the Christian line of tradition. It is not likely to be im the strict 
sense a Christian coinage, but appears to have had its beginning in near 
proximity to Christianity. A parallel case is that of the word divxos (St. 
James, Clem. Rom., Herm., Didaché, &c.). The two words seem to belong 
to the same cycle of ideas. 


€veduvaud0y TH TiotTet. 1H wicre is here usually taken as dat. of 
respect, ‘he was strengthened in his faith, i.e. ‘his faith was 
strengthened, or confirmed.’ In favour of this would be py doGerjoas 
17 miores above ; and the surrounding terms (dexpin, sAnpoopnfeis) 
might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to 
make rq sicres instrumental or causal, like rq dmoria to which it 
stands in immediate antithesis: éved. 77 wicr. would then = ‘he was 
endowed with power by means of his faith’ (sc. 1d vevexpwucvov 
aitov cpa évedvvanebn). According to the Talmud, Adraham wurde 
in saner Natur erneuert, eine neue Creatur (Bammidbar Radéa xi), 
um die Zeugung zu vollbringen (Weber, p. 256). And we can 
hardly doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author 
of Heb., who appears to have had it directly in mind: comp. Heb. 
Xi. II, 12 wiore kai ait Sdppa Svvausw eis xatraBokyv oméepyaros EAaBe 
kal mapa xaipoy 7Atkias .. . Ow Kai ad vos eyerrifncav, Kal taita 
vevexpwpévov, kabas Ta GoTpa Tov ovpavod TS TANOGe (Observe esp. Suva 
€Aa8e, vevexpwpévov): This sense is also distinctly recognized by 
Euthym.-Zig. (€veduvapedn eis radoyoviay tp wictes* 7 évedvvapebn 
pos ty zictw). The other (common) interpretation is preferred by 
Chrys., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his 6 sicrw 
eniderxvipevos Suvduews Seirat meiovos. 

The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the 
name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history 
of Revelation began. With him the people of revealed Religion 
came into existence: with him ‘the Holy One began to work 
wonders’ (Beresh. Radba liii, ap. Weber, Alisyn. Theol. p. 256). 
But it is of course a wholly new point when St. Paul compares the 
miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. 
The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events— 
both a bringing to life from conditions which betokened only 
death—but also in the faith of which they were the object. 

Sods Séfav: a Hebraism: cf. Josh. vii. 19; 1 Sam. vi. §; 
Chron. xvi 28, &c. 


116 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ___[IV. 21--26. 


21. mAnpopopn ets: mAnpopopia = ‘full assurance,’ ‘firm conviction, 
1 Thess. i. 5; Col. ii. 2; a word especially common amongst the 
Stoics. Hence rAnpodopeicOa, as used of persons, = ‘to be fully 
assured or convinced,’ as here, ch. xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12. As used of 
things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17 and 
Luke i. 1, where some take it as = ‘fully or satisfactorily proved,’ 
others as = ‘accomplished’ (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. fext Lft. On 
Revision, p. 142): see note ad loc. 

23. 80 aitév povov. Beresh. R. xl. 8 ‘Thou findest that all 
that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his 
children’ (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch ad Joc.). 
Wetstein also quotes Zaanzth ii. 1 Fratres nostri, de Ninevitis 
non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum. 

24. tots mustedouoiv: ‘to us who believe.’ St. Paul asserts that 
his readers are among the class of believers. Not ‘if we believe,’ 
which would be morevovow (s7ne artic.). 

25. Sia with acc. is primarily retrospective, =‘ because of’: but 
inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, da may be 
retrospective with reference to the idea, but prospective with 
reference to the execution. Which it is in any particular case must 
be determined by the context. 

Here &a ta mapanr. may be retrospective, = ‘because of our 
trespasses’ (which made the death of Christ necessary); or it may 
be prospective, as Gif. ‘ because of our trespasses,’ i.e. ‘in order to 
atone for them.’ 

In any case 1a tHv Sixaiwow is prospective, ‘with a view to our 
justification,’ ‘because of our justification’ conceived as a motive, 
i.e. to bring it about. See Dr. Gifford’s two excellent notes 
pp. 108, 109. 

The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is 
connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. 
It is at once the great source of the Christian’s faith, the assurance 
of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the 
Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice, 
and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in 
which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. 
See also the notes on ch, vi. 5-8. 


The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the 
teaching of St. Paul. 
The Resurrection of Christ fills an immense place in the teaching 


of St. Paul, and the fact that it does so accounts for the emphasis 
and care with which he states the evidence for it (1 Cor. xv. 1-11), 


Iv. 17-25.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 117 


(i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity 
of Christ (Acts xvii. 31; Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 15). 

(ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also 
the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death. But 
for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show—at 
least no clear and convincing sign to show—that He who died upon 
the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had 
been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient 
reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy ; the faith 
of Christians would be ‘vain,’ they would be ‘yet in their sins’ 
(1 Cor. xv. 17). 

(iii) In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of 
the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of 
Calvary would have been incomplete. The Resurrection placed 
upon that Sacrifice the stamp of God’s approval; it showed that 
the Sacrifice was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath— 
the cpy; so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. iii. 25, 
26)—had passed away. Thisis the thought which lies at the bottom 
of Rom. vi. 7—10. 

(iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for 
the resurrection of the Christian (1 Cor. xv. 20-23; 2 Cor. iv. 14; 
Rom. viii. 11; Col. i. 18).- 

(v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects: it is not only 
physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral 
and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of 
righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and 
intimate relation of his spirit with Christ's, the Christian is called 
upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And this 
moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat 
them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. vi. 1-11. 


A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schader, Die Bedeutung 
des lebendigen Christus fiir die Rechtfertigung nach Paulus, Giitersloh, 1893) 
has worked out in much careful detail the third of the above heads. Herr 
Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at K6nigsberg) 
insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by 
Christ; that which redeems is not merely the act of Christ’s Death but His 
Person (év @ éxoper THy awoAvTpwow Eph. i. 7; Col.i.14). It is as a Person 
that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his 
stead (Gal. iii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 21). The Resurrection is proof that this 
‘Wrath’ is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. iv. 25 ; 
vi. 9, 10; viii. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as 
the cause of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. 

It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort’s 
significant aphorism: ‘ Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemp- 
tion, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect 
of life’ (Hulsean Lectures, p. 210). This can more readily be accepted if 
© one aspect’ in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects. 
At the same time such a saying is useful as a warming, which is especially 
needed where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that 


118 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [{v. 1-11. 


all definitions of great doctrines have a relative rather than an absolute value 
They are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in 
their entirety. If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them 
running up into large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make 
this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Without it exact 
exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism, 


BLISSFUL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION, 


V. 1-11. The state which thus lies before the Christian 
should have consequences both near and remote. ° The nearer 
consequences, peace with God and hope which gives courage 
under persecution (vv. 1-4): the remoter consequence, an 
assurance, derived from the proof of God’s love, of our final 
salvation and glory. The first step (our present acceptance 
with God) is difficult; the second step (our ultimate salva- 
tion) follows naturally from the first (vv. 5-11). 


*We Christians then ought to enter upon our privileges. By 
that strong and eager impulse with which we enroll ourselves as 
Christ’s we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and 
it becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace 
with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. *He it is 
whose Death and Resurrection, the object of our faith (iv. 25), 
have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. Within 
the sheltered circle of that favour we stand as Christians, in no 
merely passive attitude, but we exult in the hope of one day 
participating as in the favour of God so also in His glory. * Yes, 
and this exultation of ours, so far from being shaken by per- 
secutions is actually founded upon them. For persecution only 
generates fortitude, or resolute endurance under trials: ‘and 
then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran; 
and that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally 
sprang. 

5 More: our hope is one that cannot prove illusory; because 
(and here a new factor is introduced, for the first time in this 
connexion) the Holy Spirit, through whom God is brought into 
personal contact with man—that Holy Spirit which we received 
when we became Christians. floods our hearts with the conscious- 


Vv. 1-11.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 119 


ness of the Love of God for us. *Think what are the facts to 
which we can appeal. When we were utterly weak and prostrate, 
at the moment of our deepest despair, Christ died for us—not as 
righteous men, but as godless sinners! 7 What a proof of love was 
there! For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find 
one willing to die; though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable 
qualities of goodness) one here and there may be brave enough to 
face death. * But God presses home the proof of His unmerited 
Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us. 

* Here then is an @ fortiort argument. The fact that we have 
been actually declared ‘righteous’ by coming within the influence 
of Christ’s sacrificial Blood—this fact which implies a stupendous 
change in the whole of our relations to God is a sure pledge of 
what is far easier—our escape from His final judgement. 7° For 
there is a double contrast. If God intervened for us while we were 
His enemies, much more now that we are reconciled to Him. If 
the first intervention cost the Death of His Son, the second costs 
nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in 
His Life. ™ And not only do we look for this final salvation, but 
we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God 
into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that 
one great step of our reconciliation. 

1-11. Every line of this passage breathes St. Paul’s personal 
experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are 
the grounds of a Christian’s confidence. He believes that the 
ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by 
an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to 
God. That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout 
this context, not merely in general terms to Christ (da v. 1, 2, 11 
62s) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (aapedd6n iv. 25; 
areGave v. 6, 8; € TO aiyart V. g ; bia rod Gavdrov v. 10). He con- 
ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding 
(év r@ aiyart: cf. iii. 25 and the passages referred to in the Note on 
the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). The Blood of that 
Sacrifice is as it were sprinkled round the Christian, and forms 
a sort of hallowed enclosure, a place of sanctuary, into which he 
enters. Within this he is safe, and from its shelter he looks out 
exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him; they may 
strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it. 

1. The word d:xaiwow at the end of the last chapter recalls St. 
Paul to his main topic. After expounding the nature of his new 


120 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


method of obtaining righteousness in iii. 21-26, he had begun to 
draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblow to Jewish 
pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in iii. 27-31. This 
suggested the digression in ch. iv, to prove that notwithstanding 
there was no breach of God’s purposes as declared in the O.T. 
(strictly the Legal System which had its charter in the O.T.), but 
rather the contrary. Now he goes back to ‘consequences’ and 
traces them out for the individual Christian. He explains why it 
is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully: he 
has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart, and a confident hope 
of future glory. 

éxwpev. The evidence for this reading stands thus: €yopuev & * 
AB*CDEKL, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. 
repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others: €youey correctors of & B, 
F G (duplicate MSS. it will be remembered) in the Greek though 
not in the Latin, P and many cursives, Did. Epiph. Cyr.-Alex. in 
three places out of four. Clearly overwhelming authority for 
éxouev. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of 
place: ‘inference not exhortation is the Apostle’s purpose’ 
(Scrivener, /trod. ii. 380 ed. 4); (ii) that o and are frequently 
interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Gal. vi. ro (cf. 
1 Cor. xv. 49); (iii) it is possible that a mistake might have been 
made by Tertius in copying or in some very early MS. from which 
the mass of the uncials and versions now extant may have de- 
scended. But these reasons seem insufficient to overthrow the 
weight of direct testimony. (i) St. Paul is apt to pass from argu- 
ment to exhortation; so in the near context vi. (1), 12, (15); 
viii, 12; (ii) in €xopev inference and exhiortation are really com- 
bined: it is a sort of light exhortation, ‘we should have’ (T.S. 
Evans). 

As to the meaning of €ywpev it should be observed that it does 
not = ‘make peace,’ ‘get’ or ‘obtain peace’ (which would be 
oxépev), but rather ‘keep’ or ‘enjoy peace’ (od ydp éorw ivov pi) oboay 
eipnynv AaBeiv Kat Sobcicay xaracxeiv Chrys.; cf. Acts ix. 31 9 yey 
obv exkAnoia .. . eixev elpnny, ‘ continued in a state of peace’). The 
aor. part. SicacwOevres marks the initial moment of the state elpnyny 
€xopyev. The declaration of ‘not guilty,’ which the sinner comes 
under by a heartfelt embracing of Christianity, at once does away 
with the state of hostility in which he had stood to God, and 
substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize. 
This declaration of ‘ not guilty’ and the peace which follows upon 
it are not due to himself, but are da rod Kupiov nuav "Incod Xpicrov: 
how is explained more fully in iii. 25; also in wv. 9, 10 below. 

Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad Joc.) discusses the exact shade of meaning 


conveyed by the aor. part. dimarwGévres in relation to elpyyny éxopev. He 
contends that it denotes not so much the reasom for entering upon the state 


V.1,2.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 121 


in question as the means of entering upon it. No doubt this is perfectly 
tenable on the score of grammar; and it is also true that ‘justification 
necessarily involves peace with God.’ But the argument goes too much 
upon the assumption that elp. €y. = ‘obtain peace,’ which we have seen te 
be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of elyev eipyvny in the passage 
quoted from the Acts, and d:«aiw?., as we have said, marks the initial 
moment in the state. 


2. thy mpocaywyjv. Two stages only are described in wv. 1, 2 
though different language is used about them: dKawdévres = 
mpocaywyn, eipnyn = xdpis; the xavynous is a characteristic of the 
state of xdpis, at the same time that it points forward to a future 
state of défa. The phrase 7 mpocay., ‘our introduction,’ is a con- 
necting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Eph. ii. 18; 
iii. 12): the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of 
a monarch, The rendering ‘access’ is inadequate, as it leaves 
out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but 
need an ‘ introducer ’—Christ. 

eoxyjkapev: not ‘we have had’ (Va.), but ‘we have got or 
obtained,’ aor. and perf. in one. 


‘Both grammar and logic will run in perfect harmony together if we 
render, “through whom we have by faith got or obtained our access into 
this grace wherein we stand.” This rendering will bring to view two causes 
of getting the access or obtaining the introduction into the state of grace; 
one cause objective, Christ: the other subjective, faith; Christ the door, 
faith the hand which moves the door to open and to admit’ (T. S. Evans in 
£xp. 1882, i. 169). 

7 tlove. om. BD EFG, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. 47s. The weight of this 
evidence depends on the value which we assign to B. All the other evidence 
is Western; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element; so that 
the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corrobora- 
tion of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the 
evidence = B +5, or 5 only?). There is the further point that omissions in 
the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading can 
be easily enough accounted for, as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the 
omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The balance is sufficiently 
represented by placing 79 aiores in brackets as Treg. WH. RV. marg. (Weiss 
omits). 


cis Thy xdpw tavTny: the ‘state of grace’ or condition of those 
who are objects of the Divine favour, conceived of as a space 
fenced in (Mey. Va. &c.) into which the Christian enters: cf. Gal. 
v. 4; 1 Pet. v. 12 (Va. and Grm.-Thay., s.v. xdpis 3. a). 

éornkapev: ‘stand fast or firm’ (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. s.v. 
tornue li. 2. d). 

éw éAnidu: as in iv. 18. 

tis Seéms. See on iii. 23. It is the Glory of the Divine 
Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in 
full measure when he enters into that Presence ; man’s whole being 
will be wansfigured by it. 


123 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [v.12 


Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of 
Fustification ? 


It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology 
of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the 
Christian Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as 
such. This view is based upon two main groups of arguments. 
(1) The first is derived from the analogy of the O.T. The great 
sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance 
for ‘the congregation.’ So in regard to the Passover it is laid 
down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation 
of Israel are to keep it (Ex. xii. 43 ff, 47). And still more 
distinctly as to the ritual of the Day of Atonement: the high priest 
is to ‘make atonement for the holy place, because of the un- 
cleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their trans- 
gressions, even all their sins’; he is to lay both his hands on the 
head of the goat, and ‘confess over him all the iniquities of the 
children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins’ 
(Lev. xvi. 16, 21, also 33 f.). This argument gains in force from 
the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event, 
accomplished once for all. It is natural to think of it as having 
also a single and permanent object. (2) The second argument is 
derived from the exegesis of the N.T. generally (most clearly 
perhaps in Acts xx. 28 rq exxAnoiay rod @cod [v. 1. Kupiov], fp 
mepteroncaro Sua Tov atuaros rov idiov: but also in x Jo. ii. 2; iv. 10; 
1 Pet. iii. 18; Apoc. i. 5f.; v. of.), and more particularly in the 
Epistles of St. Paul. The society is, it is true, most clearly 
indicated in the later Epp.; e.g. Tit. ii. 14 cwrjpos quay "lL. X., ds 
Caxev éavtdv imép nudy, tva AuTpwonTa Hpas ... Kal Kabapion éavT@ Aady 
mepwovotov: Eph. v. 25 f. 6 Xpiords nyamqoe thy éxxAngiay, kal éavrdv 
mapédwxev bnép aitis’ va avriy dyidon xabapicas x.7.d. (cf. also Eph. ii. 
18; iii. 12; Col. i. 14). But Ritschl also claims the support of 
the earlier Epp.: e.g. Rom. viii. 32 trép quay mdvrov mapcdaxer 
aitév: iii. 22 duxatocvvn 8€ Ceod ... eis mavras Tovs morevovras: and 
the repeated jets in the contexts of three passages (Comp. Rechi- 
Sert. u. Versihn. ii. 216 f., 160). 

In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the dist nctly in- 
dividualistic cast of such expressions as Rom. iii. 26 8:xaodvra rov 
éx tigtews "Incod: iv. § émi rév Sixaiodvta Tov aceBy, With the context: 
X. 4 els Sixatocvyny Tavti TH morevorrs (Schader, of. c##. p. 29 n.; cf. 
also Gloél, Der Heilige Geist, p. 102 n.; Weiss, Brbl. Theol. § 82 b, 
referred to by Schader). 

It is undoubtedly true that St. Paul does use language which 
points to the direct justification of the individual believer. This 


V.1,2.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 123 


perhaps comes out most clearly in Rom. iv, where the personal 
faith and personal justification of Abraham are taken as typical of 
the Christian’s. But need we on that account throw over the other 
passages above quoted, which seem to be quite as unambiguous? 
That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity 
brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. We 
may if we like, as St. Paul very often does, leave out of sight the 
intervening steps; and it is perhaps the more natural that he 
should do so, as the Church is in this connexion an ideal entity. 
But this entity is prior in thought to the members who compose 
it; and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as consummated 
once for all and in its effects reaching down through the ages, it is 
no less natural to let the mind dwell on the conception which 
alone embraces past, present, and future, and alone binds all the 
scattered particulars into unity. 

We must remember also that in the age and to the thought of 
St. Paul the act of faith in the individual which brings him within 
the range of justification is inseparably connected with its ratifica- 
tion in baptism. But the significance of baptism lies in the fact 
that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society, 
and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities 
of that society. St. Paul is about (in the next chapter) to lay 
stress on this point. He there, as well as elsewhere, describes the 
relation of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with 
Christ as established by the same act which makes him also 
member of the society. And therefore when at the beginning of 
the present chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Christian into 
the state of grace in metaphors which present that state under the 
figure of a fenced-off enclosure, it is natural to identify the area 
within which grace and justification operate with the area of the 
society, in other words with the Church. The Church however in 
this connexion can have no narrower definition than ‘all baptized 
persons.’ And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an 
inseparable adjunct to faith; so that if through any exceptional 
circumstances the two were separated, the greater might be taken 
to include the less. The Christian theologian has to do with what 
is normal; the abnormal he leaves to the Searcher of hearts. 

It is thus neither in a spirit of exclusiveness nor yet in that of 
any hard and fast Scholasticism, but only in accordance with the 
free and natural tendencies of the Apostle’s thought, that we speak 
of Justification as normally mediated through the Church. St. 
Paul himself, as we have seen, often drops the intervening link, 
especially in the earlier Epistles. But in proportion as his maturer 
insight dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic 
whole he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer 
what the ‘congregation’ did for the individual Israelites under the 


124 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 2-5. 
older dispensation. The Christian Sacrifice with its effects, like 
the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement by which it is typified, 


reach the individual through the community. 


3-5. The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand 
out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compare the 
Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (#on solum ...confundit) and the 
European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary (tribulatio . . . confundit). 
The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speces/um (m), which represents 


the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian (Classical Review, iv. 416 f.). 


CyPRIAN. 

Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur 
in pressuris, scientes quoniam pres- 
sura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia 
autem probationem, probatio autem 
spem ; spes autem non confundit, guia 
dilectio Det infusa est cordibus nostris 
per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est 
nobis. 


Cop. CLAROM. 

Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur 
in tribulationibus, scientes quod tribu- 
latio patientiam operatur, patientia 
autem probationem, probatio autem 
spem ; spes autem non confundit, quia 
caritas Det diffusa est in cordibus 
nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui 
datus est nobis. 


verum etiam exultantes Tert.; certé 
quod Tert.; perfictat Tert. (ed. Vin- 
dob.) ; tol. vero Tert.; spes vero Tert. 


Here, as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of matter 
common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the supposition 
that a single translation lies at their root. But the salient expressions are 
changed ; and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with 
the European texts. The renderings o/erantia and pressura are verified for 
Tertullian elsewhere (tolerantia Luke xxi. 19; 1 Thess. i. 4: pressura 
Rom. viii. 35; xii. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 28; a Cor. i. 8; iv. 17; vi. 43 Vii. 4; 
Col. i. 24; 2 Thess. i. 4; Apoc. ii. 22; vii. 14), as also dzlectio (to which 
the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found in 
Luke xi. 42; John xiii. 35; Rom. viii. 35, 39; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff., &c.). We 
note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in erjicét ( perficiat), though 
in another place Hilary has allusively ¢ribulatio patientiam operatur. 
Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering. 


perficit Hil; prob. vero m Hil.; 
spes vero Hil. (Cod. Clarom. = m). 


8. od pdvov 8é (Eoryxayev GAda kai kavydpeba, OF éornKOres GAAG Kal 
kavxopevot): in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and 
esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. v. 11; viii. 23; ix. 10; 2 Cor. 
viii. 19). 

kavxdpevor B C, Orig. 47s and others: a good group, but open to suspicion 
of conforming to ver. 11 (q. v.); we have also found a similar group, on the 
whole inferior, in iii. 28. If xavywpevos were right it would be another 
example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure which is 
doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an amanuensis. 
Note the contrast between the Jewish xavynots which ‘is excluded’ 

(iii. 27) and this Christian xavynow. The one rests on supposed 
human privileges and merit; the other draws all its force from the 
assurance of Divine love. 

The Jewish writers know of another xavynats (besides the empty boasting 
which St. Paul reprehends), but it is reserved for the blest in Paradise: 4 Ezr. 
vii. 98 [Bensly =vi. 72 O. F. Fritzsche] exu/tabunt cum fiducta et .. . com 
fidebunt non confusi, et gaudebunt non reverenies. 


V. 3-5.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 125 


év rais Odtpeor. The @rtes are the physical hardships and 
sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the 
Christian; cf. Rom. viii. 35 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 11-13; vii. 26-32; xv. 
30-32; 2 Cor. i. 3-10; xi. 23-27. Such passages give us 
glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul’s 
Epistles. He is so absorbed in his ‘ Gospel’ that this makes very 
little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the 
overwhelming sense of God’s mercy and love fills him with such 
exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in 
the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The 
same feeling comes out in the timepuxaper of vill. 37: the whole 
passage is parallel. 

Swopormy: not merely a passive quality but a ‘masculine con- 
stancy in holding out under trials’ (Waite on 2 Cor. vi. 4), ‘ forti- 
tude.’ See on ii. 7 above. 

4. Soxipy: the character which results from the process of trial, 
the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit ; cf. 
James i. 12, &c. The exact order of imopovy and Soxyy must not 
be pressed too far: in St. Jamesi. 3 1d doxiuov rijs miotews produces 
troporn. If St. James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we 
might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The con- 
ception is that of 2 Tim. ii. 3 (in the revised as well as the received 
text). 

Wee Soxiph Amida. It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience 
that the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened 
by the hardening and bracing of character which come from 
actual conflict. Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming 
sense of God’s love, brought home through the Death of Christ ; 
and to this the Apostle returns. 

5. 00 katatoxuvet : * does not disappoint,’ ‘ does not prove illusory.’ 
The text Is. xxviii. 16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early 
Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (‘ Behold, 
I lay in Zion,’ &c.), and the assurance by which this was followed 
(‘he that believeth shall not be put to shame’) was confirmed to 
them by their own experience: the verse is directly quoted Rom. 
4G. v.; 1 Pet. i. 6. 

q d&ydam tod Ocod: certainly ‘the love of God for us,’ not ‘ our 
love for God’ (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns): dydry thus 
comes to mean, ‘our sense of God’s love, just as efpyv7 = ‘ our 
sense of peace with God.’ 

éxxéxutat. The idea of spiritual refreshment and encourage- 
ment is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of 
watering. St. Paul seems to have had in his mind Is. xliv. 3 
‘I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the 
dry ground: I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed,’ &c. 

Sa Mvedparos “Ayiou: without the art., for the Spirit as zmparied. 


126 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 5, 6. 


St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of 
Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the 
time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i.e. from 
his baptism. 

6. ém ydép. There is here a difficult, but not really very im- 
portant, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus 
summarized :— 

és ydp at the beginning of the verse with érs also after doGevay, 
the mass of MSS. 

érx at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. 
(later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). 

eis ti ydp (possibly representing iva ri ydp, ut guid enim), the 
Western text (Latin authorities). 

el yap few authorities, partly Latin. 

ei ye B. 

It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account 
for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the 
double ér:, does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an 
accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or his amanuensis. 
It would not be difficult to get ér: yap from tva ri yap, or vice versa, 
through the doubling or dropping of tn from the preceding word 
HMIN; nor would it be difficult to explain ér: yap from ef ydp, or 
vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative ef 
yap or et ye, which might be confused with each other through the 
use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given below. We think 
on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in iv. 1, B has 
preserved the original reading ef ye. For the meaning of ef ye (‘so 
surely as’ Va.) see T. S. Evans in £xp. 1882, i. 176 f.; and the note 
on iii. 30 above. 


In more detail the evidence stands thus: érs ydp here with é7: also after 
dobevav NAC D* al.: és here only DD9EKLP &c.: eis ri yap DPF G: 
ut quid enim Lat.-Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat. Faustin: ef yap 104 Greg. (=h 
Scriv.), fuld., Isid.-Pelus. Aug. 2s: ei yap... é7: Boh. (‘For if, we being still 
weak,’ &c.): ef 5€ Pesh. : ef ye B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips., 
and not quite correctly even by Gif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch. 
The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH.] 
It thus appears: (1) that the reading most strongly supported is é7 ‘yap, 
with double ém, which is impossible unless we suppose a /apsus calamé 
between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Western reading is els zi 
4p, which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original fva 
ti yap (Gif., from ut guid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.): this is no doubt a very 
early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is ei yap. (4) B alone gives 
ef ye. So far as sense goes this is the best, and there are not a few cases in 
N. T. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. iv. r above) 
But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be 
difficult palaeographically from «l ydp to get érs yap by dittography of 
t (etrap, elirap, etirap), or from this again to get els ri yép through ditto- 
graphy of e and confusion with c (ectirap) ; or we might take the alternative 
ingeniously suggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was ive 


V. 6,7.] | CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 129 


zi yp, of which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous #piv 
(Goaninlegreel There would thus be no great difficulty in accounting for 

e origin either of é7: yap or of the group of Western readings; and the 
primitive variants would be reduced to the two, ei rap and ei re. Dr. Hort 
proposed to account for these by a conjectural e1 mep, which would be a con- 
ceivable root for all the variations—partly through paraphrase and partly 
through errors of transcription. We might however escape the necessity of 
resorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between re and the abbrevia- 
tion fb. [For this form see T. W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek 
MSS. (Oxford, 1889), p. 9 and pl. iii; Lehmann, Dze tachygraphischen Ab- 
kirzungen d. griech. Handschreften (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We 
believe that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmentum Mathematicum 
BSobiense of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab. 8), 
where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that short- 
hand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. £. 
VL. xxiii. 2), and it may have been used by Tertius himself.] Where we 
have such a tangled skein to unravel as this it is impossible to speak very 
confidently ; but we suspect that ef yc, as it makes the best sense, may also 
be the original reading. 





ei re ce rb) 
ae 
a fe ¢j er 
, . | , 

én far ei rap 

s l ’ | 
em! fap | | 

[inJa ti rap ic Ti rap 


ut guid enim 

dobevay: ‘incapable’ of working out any righteousness for our- 
selves. 

cata xatpév. St. Paul is strongly impressed with the fitness of 
the moment in the world’s history which Christ chose for His 
intervention in it. This idea is a striking link of connexion between 
the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles ; compare 
on the one hand Gal. iv. 4; 2 Cor. vi. 2; Rom. iii. 26; and on 
the other hand Eph. i. 10; 1 Tim. ii. 6; vi. 15; Tit. i 3. 

7. podts yép. The ydp explains how this dying for sinners is 
a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good 
man, still fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ 
there is more even than this; He died for declared enemies of God. 

For pddus the first hand of ® and Orig. read yéys, which has more 

attestation in Luke ix. 39. The two words were easily confused both in 

sense and in writing. 

Gwép Stkaiov. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between 
trép dixaiov and inép rod dyafov. They are not expressions which 
may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. &c.), but it 


128 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 7-9. 


is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the ¢yaéés than for the 
3ixaos, Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the 
God of the O. T. and the God of the N.T., calling the one 8ixatos 
and the other dya6ds (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. 1; comp. other 
passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The dixaos keeps 
to the ‘letter of his bond’; about the dya@és there is something 
warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice 
and devotion. 

In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus, 
not to speak of others, it should not be argued as it is by Weiss 
and Lips. (who make rod dyaéod neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. 
T. K. Abbott (Zssays, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference 
between Sixatos and dyaéés. We ourselves often use ‘righteous’ 
and ‘good’ as equivalent without effacing the distinction between 
them when there is any reason to emphasize it. The stumbling- 
block of the art. before aya6od and not before dixaiov need not stand 
in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out 
that the clause beginning with pods is virtually negative, so that 
dtxatov is indefinite and does not need the art., while the affirmative 
clause implies a definite instance which the art. indicates. 

We go therefore with most English and American scholars 
(Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Continental 
names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural 
sense of the passage. 

8. ouviornot: see on iii. 5. 

tiv éautod dydanv: ‘His own love,’ emphatic, prompted from 
within not from without. Observe that the death of Christ is here 
referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of 
what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the ‘scheme of re- 
demption.’ Gif. excellently remarks that the ‘ proof of God’s love 
towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion 
to the closeness of the union between God and Christ.’ It is the 
death of One who is nothing less than ‘ the Son.’ 


Tiv éavtod dydany eis jas 6 cds NACKP &c.: db Oeds els Huas 
DEFGL: om. 6 @eés B. There is no substantial difference of meaning, 
as els as in any case goes with suviorna, not with dyamyy. 


‘ daép fav dréQave. St. Paul uses emphatic language, 1 Cor. 
Xv. 1-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but 
was a common property of Christians. 

9. St. Paul here separates between ‘justification,’ the pronouncing 
‘not guilty’ of sinners in the past and their final salvation from the 
wrath to come. He also clearly connects the act of justification 
with the bloodshedding of Christ: he would have said with the 
author of Heb. ix. 22 xapis aizarexxucias ov yiveras aheois, See P. 92, 
above. =the 


Vv. 9-11.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 12g 


No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres 
of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next—the 
one an objective fact accomplished without us, the other a change 
operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from 
Christ. 

Sv aérod: explained by the next verse év 17 (w7 airod. That 
which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with 
the living Christ. 

10. katn\d\dynpev. The natural prima facie view is that the 
reconciliation is mutual; and this view appears to verify itself on 
examination: see below. 

év TH Lon adtod. For the full meaning of this see the notes on 
ch. vi. 8-11 ; viii. 10, 11. 

11. xavxdpevor (S& BC D, &c.) is decisively attested for xavyapeda, 
which was doubtless due to an attempt to improve the construction. 
The part. is loosely attached to what precedes, and must be taken 
as in sense equivalent to cavyoueOa. In any case it is present and 
not future (as if constructed with cw6nodueéa). We may compare 
a similar loose attachment of dicacodpev in ch. iii. 24. 


The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement. 


The xarad\ayn described in these verses is the same as the cipnun 
of ver. 1; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this 
eipnvn OF kata\kayn mean? Is it a change in the attitude of man to 
God or in that of God to man? Many high authorities contend 
that it is only a change in the attitude of man to God. 

Thus Lightfoot on Col. i. 21: ‘ éy@pous, “ hosiile to God,” as the 
opposite of dmn\Xorpiwpevovs, not “ hateful to God,” as it is taken 
by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ¢yOpovs is 
required by the context, which (as commonly in the N. T.) speaks 
of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the 
sinner ... It is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must 
undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.’ 

Similarly Westcott on 1 Jo. ii. 2 (p. 85): ‘Such phrases as “ pro- 
pitiating God” and “God being reconciled” are foreign to the 
language of the N. T. Man is reconciled (2 Cor. v. 18 ff.; Rom. 
v. tof.) There is “propitiation” in the matter of sin or of the 
sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He 
“cannot” in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent 
and sinful: and more than this, He “cannot” treat sin as if it 
were not sin. This being so, the idacpds, when it is applied to the 
sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin.” [A difficult and it may be 
thought hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is 
uot merely passive but active; and the term idaopés is properly 


130 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-14, 


used in reference to a personal agent. Some one is ‘ propitiated’: 
and who can this be, but God?] 

The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of 
Ritschl (Recht. u. Vers. ii. 230 ff.). 

No doubt there are passages where ¢x4pés denotes the hostility 
and «xaradAayn the reconciliation of man to God; but taking the 
language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be 
explained in this way. 

(1) In the immediate context we have rv xara\Aayyw €AdBoper, 
implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of 
God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may 
compare the familiar ydpis xat efpnyy, to which is usually added amd 
Gcod in the greetings of the Epistles. 

(2) In Rom. xi. 28 €x@poi is opposed to dyamnrol, where ayamnrot 
must be passive (‘beloved by God’), so that it is hardly possible 
that é€x@poi can be entirely active, though it may be partly so: it 
seems to correspond to our word ‘ hostile.’ 

(3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as Aacrqpiov (Rom. iii. 
25), Aacyds (1 Jo. ii. 2) from the idea of propitiating a person. 

(4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed 
against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this 
present time (Rom. i. 18, &c.). When that Anger ceases to be 
so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be com- 
pelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man. 

We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which 
speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that 
they are not on one side only, but are mutual. 

At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our 
imperfect way of speaking: xara dvépwrov Xéyw must be written 
large over all such language. We are obliged to use anthropo- 
morphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or relation 
on the part of God as well as of man; and yet in some way which 
we cannot wholly fathom we may believe that with Him there is 
‘no variableness, neither shadoy of turning.’ 


THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE WORK OF CHRIST. 


V. 12-14. What a contrast does this last description 
suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work 
of Christ! There is indeed parallelism as well as contrast. 
Fer it is true that as Christ brought righteousness and life, 
so Adam's Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailed 
throughout the tre-Mosatc period, that could not be due solely 


V. 12-14.) ADAM AND CHRIST 137 


to the act of i%sse who died. Death is the punishment of 
sin; but they had not sinned against law as Adam had. 
The true cause then was not their own sin, but Adam's; 
whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond ttself, like 
the redeeming act of Chrisv. 


12The description just given of the Work of Christ, first justifying 
and reconciling the sinner, and then holding out to him the hope 
of final salvation, brings ow forcibly the contrast between the 
two great Representatives of IKt{umanity—Adam and Christ. The 
act by which Adam fell, like the act of Christ, had a far-reaching 
effect upon mankind. Through his Fall, Sin, as an active principle, 
first gained an entrance among the human race; and Sin brought 
with it the doom of (physical) Death. So that, through Adam’s 
Fall, death pervaded the whole body of his descendants, because 
they one and all fell into sin, and died as he had died. ™ When 
I say ‘they sinned’ I must insert a word of qualification. In the 
strict sense of full responsibility, they could not sin: for that 
attaches only to sin against law, and they had as yet no law to 
sin against. ™Yet they suffered the full penalty of sin. All 
through the long period which intervened between Adam and the 
Mosaic legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even though 
those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of 
an express command. This proved that something deeper was 
at work: and that could only be the transmitted effect of Adam’s 
sin. It is this transmitted effect of a single act which made Adam 
a type of the coming Messiah. 


12. 81a toiro: points to the logical connexion with what pre- 
cedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, 
whether this refers to ver. 11 only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loct 
Pauliné ad Rom. v. 12 sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or 
to vv. 9-11 (Fri.), or to vw. 1-11 (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the 
whole discussion from i. 17 onwards (Beng., Schott, Reiche, 
Riickert), We cannot lay down so precisely how much was 
consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the lead- 
ing idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of 
consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of 
consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seems 
natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline of 
that work, i.e. as far as wv. 1-11. 


132 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12. 


That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. xx that 
St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one 
case with that of /fe in the other. Fricke, however, is right in 
saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death 
or sin. The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as 
anything new. This is important for the understanding of the 
bearings of the passage. All turns on this, that the effects of 
Adam’s Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul 
nowhere says ow they were transmitted; nor does he even define 
in precise terms whaf is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean 
(1) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the punishment 
of sin. 

Gonep. The structure of the paragraph introduced by this 
word (to the end of ver. 14) is broken in a manner very character- 
istic of St. Paul. He begins the sentence as if he intended it to 
Tun: domep Se évds avOpwmov 4 dpaptia eis tov Kécpov cianAGe, wat dia 
Tis dpaprias 6 Odvatos ... ovtw kal 3 évis dvOpamrov H Sixaoowwy 
elon Oe, kat b:a tis Sixarcoovwns 7 Con. But the words da ris duap- 
rias 6 6dvaros bring up the subject which St. Paul is intending to 
raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam: 
he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently 
for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence 
which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause 
comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (és éor: riros rod péAXovros) 
to the end of his digression: and so what should have been the 
main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely sub- 
ordinate. It is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and 
intensity of thought; but the meaning is quite clear. Compare 
the construction of ii. 16; iii. 8, 26. 

4, Gpaptia: Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant 
force let loose among mankind: see the fuller note at the end of 
the chapter. 

eis tov kéopov eion\Oe: a phrase which, though it reminds us 
specially of St. John (John i. 9, 10; iii. 17, 19; Vi. 143 ix. 5, 
39; xX. 36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. 1 Tim, i. 15; Heb. 
x. 5). St. John and the author of Heb. apply it to the personal 
incarnation of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal 
self-diffusion of evil. 

& @dvatos. Some have taken this to mean ‘eternal death,’ 
chiefly on the ground of wv. 17, 21, where it seems to be opposed 
to ‘eternal life.’ Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this 
view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of ‘physical 
death’: because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is 
the sense of Gen. ii. 17; iii. 19; to which St. Paul is evidently 
alluding. It seems probable that even in wv. 17, 21, the idea 
is in the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the 


V. 12.) ADAM AND CHRIST 133 


marked distinction that we do between this life and the life to 
come. The mention of death in any sense is enough to suggest 
the contrast of life in all its senses. The Apostle’s argument 
is that the gift of life and the benefits wrought by Christ are 
altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam’s sin; 
imeperepiocevoev  xapis is the keynote of the passage. It is not 
necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly cor- 
tespond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour 
of the Christian. 


The Western text (D E F G, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug. 
makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin: he accuses the Pelagians 
of inserting (the second) 6 @dvaros. 


Sup\Oev: contains the force of distribution; ‘made its way to 
each individual member of the race’: xaOdmep tis kXijpos matpos 
dtaBas emi rovs éyydvous (‘like a father’s inheritance divided among 
his children’), Euthym.-Zig. 

é¢’ o. Though this expression has been much fought over, 
there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ‘ because.’ 
(1) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Ambrstr. 
took the rel. as masc. with antecedent "Addu: ‘in whom, i.e. ‘in 
Adam.’ But in that case (i) émt would not be the right preposi- 
tion; (ii) ¢ would be too far removed from its antecedent. 
(2) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. 
with antecedent @dvaros: ‘in which, i.e. ‘in death,’ which is 
even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking 6 as neut. and 
the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to 
get out of it other meanings than ‘because.’ So (i) ‘in like 
manner as’ (‘all died, jus¢ as all sinned’), Rothe, De Wette; 
(ii) (= é¢’ door) ‘in proportion as,’ ‘in so far as’ (‘all died, 2” so 
far as all sinned’), Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But 
the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) @ is rightly 
taken as neut., and the phrase é’ 6 as conj.=‘because’ (‘for 
that” AV. and RV.) by Theodrt. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass 
of modern commentators. This is in agreement with Greek 
usage and is alone satisfactory. 


ép @ in classical writers more often means ‘on condition that’: cf. 
Thuc. i. 113 ozovias mornodpevar ép o& Tovs dydpas KomodvTa:, ‘on con- 
dition of getting back their prisoners,’ &c. The plural é¢’ ofs is more 
common, as in av@” dy, é€ dy, &’ av. In N.T. the phrase occurs three 
times, always as it would seem=fropterea guod, ‘because’: cf. 2 Cor. v. 4 
orevafoueyv Bapovpevors ep & ov OédAopev éxdicacGa x«.7.r.; Phil. iii. 12 
ép’ @ Kal katednpdrv bird X. "I. (where ‘seeing that’ or ‘because’ appears 
to be the more pro able rendering). So Phavorinus (d.. 1537; a lexico- 
grapher of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older 
works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) é¢’ @ dvti Tov S107 
Acyousw “Arrixoi, oiov ég’ @ TiY KAOTRY €ipydow (‘because you com- 
mitted the theft’) «.7.A. 


134 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12, 12. 


2g’ G mdvres Hpaptov. Here lies the erux of this difficult pas- 
sage. In what sense did ‘all sin’? (1) Many, including even 
Meyer, though explaining ¢¢’ 6 as neut. rather than masc., yet 
give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent 
to that which it has if the antecedent of ¢ is’Adap. Bengel has 
given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, 
‘all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam,’ his sin involved theirs. 
The objection is that the words supplied are far too important 
to be left to be understood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did 
he not say so? The insertion of év ’Adaz would have removed 
all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part 
supply nothing, but take jyaproy in its usual sense: ‘all sinned 
in their own persons, and on their own initiative.’ So Euthym.- 
Zig.: Qdre mavres tyaprov dxodovOncavtes TH mporraropt Kata ye TO 
dpaprjoa. The objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism 
between Adam and Christ: besides, St. Paul goes on to show 
in the same breath that they could not sin in the same way that 
Adam did. Sin implies law; but Adam’s descendants had no law, 
(3) It is possible however. to take jyaprov in its ordinary sen@# 
without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. 
If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited 
from Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, &c. There 
still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with 
what follows: see the next note. 


It is a further argument in favour of the view taken above that a very 
similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. Immediately after laying 
down that the sin of Adam’s descendants is due to that malignitas radicis 
which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full 
below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam’s due 
to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he had: Zt 
deliquerunt qui habitabant civitatem, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam 
et omnes generationes cius, utebantur enim et ipst corde maligno (4 Ezra iii. 
25 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Afoc. 
Baruch. which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the 
freedom of choice in those who give way to it: see the fuller note below. 


18. dxpt yap vépou «.7.A. At first sight this seems to give a 
reason for just the opposite of what is wanted: it seems to prove 
not that mavres jjpaprov, but that however much men might sin 
they had not at least the full guilt of sin. This is really what 
St. Paul aims at proving. There is an under-current all through 
the passage, showing how there was something else at work 
besides the guilt of individuals. That ‘something’ is the effect 
of Adam’s Fall. The Fall gave the predisposition to sin; and 
the Fall linked together sin and death. 

St. Paul would not say that the absence of written law did 
away with all responsibility. He has already laid down most 
distinctly that Gentiles, though without such written law, have 


V. 18, 14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 135 


law enough to be judged by (ii. 12-16); and Jews b fore the 
time of Moses were only in the position of Gentiles. But the 
degree of their guilt could not be the same either as that of 
Adam, or as that of the Jews after the Mosaic legislation. 
Perhaps it might be regarded as an open question whether, apart 
from Adam, pre-Mosaic sins would have been punishable with 
death. What St. Paul wishes to bring out is that prior to the 
giving of the Law, the fate of mankind, to an extent and in a way 
which he does not define, was directly traceable to Adam’s Fall. 

Gpaptia Sé ok eAdoyettar x.t.A. The thought is one which 
had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see on iv. 15, and 
the parallels there quoted. 

éddoyettar: ‘brought into account’ (Gif.), as of an entry made 
in a ledger. The word also occurs in Philem. 18, where see 
Lightfoot’s note. 


éAdoyeira (or évAoyeira) N° BCDEFGKLP, &c., @ddoyarar N@: 
évehoyeiTo N*, EAAoyGTO A 52 108; zmputabatur Vulg. codd. Ambrstr. al. 
The imperf. appears to be a (mistaken) correction due to the context. 
As to the form of the verb: éAAdya is decisively attested in Philem. 18; 
but it would not follow that the same form was used here where St. Paul 
is employing a different amanuensis: however, as the tendency of the MSS. 
is rather to obliterate vernacular forms than to introduce them, there is 
perhaps a slight balance of probability in favour of éAAoyaGrar: see Westcott 
and Hort, Votes on Orthography in Appendix to Introd. p. 166 ff. 


14. éBacidevoev & Odvatos. St. Paul appeals to the universal 
prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just 
before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mis- 
chief wrought by Adam’s Fall. Nothing but the Fall could 
account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their 
beginnings together, and they were propagated side by side. 


On the certainty and universality of Death, regarded as a penalty, comp. 
Seneca, Wat. Quaest. ii. 59 Eodem cétius tardiusve veniendum est... in 
omnes constitutum est capitale supplicium et quidem constitutione tustissima. 
nam quod magnum solet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorum eadem 
causa et sors cadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of tov cuppud vexpoy judy, 
70 o@pa (De Gigant. 3; ed. Mang. i. 264). Elsewhere he goes a step further 
and asserts 67: mav7i yevynTd ... cuppues TO Guapravey. For parallels in 
4 Ezra and Apoc. Baruch. see below. 

émt Tovs py Guaprycavtas. A number of authorities, mostly Lat n Fathers, 
but including also the important margin of Cod. 67 with three other cursives, 
the first hand of d, and the Greek of Orig. at least once, omit the negative, 
making the reign of death extend only over those who had sinned after the 
likeness of Adam. So Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly, Latin 
MSS. known to Aug., the ‘older Latin MSS.’ according to Ambrstr. and 
Sedulius. The comment of Ambrstr. is interesting as showing a certain grasp 
of critical principles, though it was difficult for any one in those days to have 
sufficient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr. 
poo in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS., because those with which 

e is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, an 
older form of text. He claims that this form has the support of Tertullian, 


136 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [v.14 


Cyprian and Victorinus—a statement which we are not at present able te 
verify. He accounts for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical 
corruption. There is similar question of the insertion or omission of a 
negative in Rom. iv. 19 (q.v.), Gal. ii. 5. In two out of the three cases the 
Western text omits the negative, but in ch. iv. 19 it inserts it. 

Tumos (TUz7Tw): (1) the ‘impression’ left by a sharp blow (7dv tumov 
vv fjAwv John xx. 25), in particular the ‘stamp’ struck by a die; (2) 
inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ‘copy,’ 
‘figure,’ or ‘ representation ’; (3) by a common transition from effect to cause, 
‘mould,’ ‘ pattern,’ ‘exemplar’; (4) hence in the special sense of the word 
type, which we have adopted from the Greek of the N.T., ‘an event or 
person in history corresponding in certain characteristic features to another 
event or person.’ That which comes first in order of time is properly the 
type, that which comes afterwards the antitype (dv7irumos 1 Pet. iii. 21). 
These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation: see 
esp. Cheyne, /saiah, ii. 170 ff. (Essay III, ‘ On the Christian Element in the 
Book of Isaiah’). 


to péAovros. (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole 
comparison prevents us from taking rod peAA. as neut. = ‘that 
which was to come’ (Beng., Oltramare). If St. Paul had 
mtended this, he would have written rod peéAdovros ai@vos. (2) 
Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the 
Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as 6 detrepos or 6 éoxaros 
"Addu (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). If St. Paul had intended this, he 
would have written tov péAdovros ’Adap. (3) The context makes 
it clear enough who is intended The first representative of 
the human race as such prefigured its second Great Repre- 
sentative, whose coming lay in the future: this is sufficiently 
brought out by the expression ‘of Him who was to be. 6 
pedAov thus approximates in meaning to 6 épxyduevos (Matt. xi. 
3; Luke vii. 19; Heb. x. 37), which however appears not to 
have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation 
for the Messiah *. In any case rov peAdovros = ‘ Him who was to 
come’ when Adam fell, not ‘ who #s (still) to come’ (Fri. De W.). 


The Effects of Adam's Fall in Fewish Theology. 


Three points come out clearly in these verses: (1) the Fall of 
Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his 
descendants; (2) the Fall of Adam also brought sin and the 
tendency to sin; (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does 
not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive some 
partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does 


* <The designation “The Coming One” (//adéa), though a most truthful 
expression of Jewish expectancy, was not one erdinarily used of the Messiah.” 
Edersheim, Z. & 7. i, p. 668 


\ 


V. 12-14.] ADAM AND CHRIST 137 


not seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject. 
Dr. Edersheim says expressly: ‘So far as their opinions can be 
gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and 
of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient 
Rabbis’ (Zi/e and Times, &c. i. 165). Still there are approxima- 
tions, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freelv 
already, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch. 


(1) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam’s sin and 
the introduction of death. ‘ There were,’ says Dr. Edersheim, ‘two divergent 
opinions—the one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam’s guilt’ 
(op. cet. i. 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly pre- 
ponderated. Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: 
e.g. Wisd. ii. 23 f. 6 @eds éxricev Tov dvOpwmov én’ apbapoiq... POdvy Se 
biaBddrou Odvaros ciahAGev cis Tov Kocpov, where we note the occurrence of 
St. Paul’s phrase; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] 6 adriy (sc. tiv yuvaika) drobv7- 
@xopev mavres. The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and 
Apoc. Baruch.: 4 Ezr. iii. 7 e¢ hute (sc. Adamo) mandasté diligere viam 
tsam, et practerivit eam; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in 
nationibus (= generationibus) eius: Apoc. Baruch. xvii. 3 (Adam) mortem 
attulit et abscidit annos eorum qui ab €0 geniti fuerunt: ibid. xxiii. 4 
Quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur. 

(2) We are warmed (by Dr. Edersheim in S$. Comm. Apocr. ad loc.) not 
to identify the statement of Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] dm0 -yuvaikds apy} aGyaprias 
with the N. T. doctrine of Original Sin: still it points in that direction; we 
have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind, 
and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her (d76 yur.) the tnztium 
peccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. 21 f. Cor enim malignum baiulans 
primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt: 
et facta est permanens infirmitas, et lex cum corde popili, cum malignitate 
radicis; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum: ibid. iv. 30 
Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et 
quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area: 
ibid. vii. 48 (118) O tu guid fecisti Adam? Si enim tu peccasti,non est 
factus solius tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus. 

(3) And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi- 
bility on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above 
on ver. 12 (ad fin.). To the same effect are 4 Ezr. viii. 59 1. Mon enim 
Altissimus volutt hominem disperdi, sed ipsi quit creati sunt coinquinaverunt 
momen etus gui fectt cos: ibid. ix. 11 gui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc 
erant habentes libertatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. 
liv. 15, 19 Si enim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes 
immaturam ; sed etiam tlli qui ex co nati sunt, unusquisque ex eis pracpa- 
ravit animae suae tormentum futurum: et tlerum unusquisque ex eis 
elegit sibt gloriam futuram ... Non est ergo Adam causa, nist animae suae 
tantum ; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam. 

The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the 
Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (A/tsyn. Theol. p. 216): 
«By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right 
relation to God is rendered difficult. More than this cannot be said. Sin, 
to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation, 
had become a fact ; the ‘‘ evil impulse” (= cor malignum) gained the mastery 
over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts; before the Fall 
it had had power over him, but no such ascendancy (Uebermacht).’ Hence 
when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis 
‘there is such a thing as transmission of guilt, but not such a thing as trans 


138 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 15-21. 


mission of sin (Zs gibt eine Erbschuld, aber keine Erbstinde)} the negative 
proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Asc, 
Baruch.) insist upon free-will and direct individual responsibility. 


It seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in toa 
marked opposition to this. There is no fundamental inconsistency 
between his views and those of his contemporaries. He does not 
indeed either affirm or deny the existence of the cor malignum 
before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as mos 
vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam: on the other hand he 
does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human 
responsibility both under the Law (ch. vii. 7 ff.) and without it 
(ii. 12-15). But here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious 
subject (see p. 267 below), he practically contents himself with 
leaving the two complementary truths side by side. Man inherits 
his nature; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility 
from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free 
to choose; and on that freedom of choice he must stand or fall. 


ADAM AND CHRIST. 


V. 15-21. So far the parallelism: but note also the 
contrast. How superior the Work of Christ! (1) How 
different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all 
bounty or grace! (ver. 15). (2) How different in quantity, 
or mode of working: one act tainting the whole race with 
sin, and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to 
be forgiven! (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in 
its whole character and consequences: a reign of Death and 
a reign of Life! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adam's Fall 
brought sin: Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has 
cancelled, and more than cancelled, the effect of Law (vv. 
18-21). 

In both cases there is a transmission of effects: but there 
the resemblance ends. In all else the false step (or Fall, as we 
call it) of Adam and the free gift of God’s bounty are most unlike. 
The fall of that one representative man entailed death upon the 
many members of the race to which he belonged. Can we then 
be surprised if an act of such different quality—the free unearned 
favour of God, and the gift of righteousness bestowed through 


V. 15-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 139 


the kindness of that other Representative Man, Jesus Messiah 
—should have not only cancelled the effect of the Fall, but 
also brought further blessings to the whole race? ‘There is 
a second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ 
and the ill effects of one man’s sinning. The sentence pro- 
nounced upon Adam took its rise in the act of a single man, and 
had for its result a sweeping verdict of condemnation. But the 
gift bestowed by God inverts this procedure. It took its rise in 
many faults, and it had for its result a verdict declaring sinners 
righteous. ‘7Yet once more. Through the single fault of the one 
man Adam the tyrant Death began its reign through that one 
sole agency. Much more then shall the Christian recipients of 
that overflowing kindness and of the inestimable gift of righteous- 
ness—much more shal! they also reign, not in death but in life, 
through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah. 

%*To sum up. On one side we have the cause, a single Fall; 
and the effect, extending to all men, condemnation. On the other 
side we have as cause, a single absolving act; and as effect, also 
extending to all, a like process of absolution, carrying with it life. 
For as through the disobedience of the one man Adam all 
mankind were placed in the class and condition of ‘sinners,’ so 
through the obedience (shown in His Death upon the Cross) of the 
one man, Christ, the whole multitude of believers shall be placed 
in the class and condition of ‘righteous.’ *® Then Law came in, 
as a sort of ‘afterthought, a secondary and subordinate stage, 
in the Divine plan, causing the indefinite multiplication of sins 
which, like the lapse or fall of Adam, were breaches of express 
command. Multiplied indeed they were, but only with the result 
of calling forth a still more abundant stream of pardoning grace. 
® Hitherto Sin has sat enthroned in a kingdom of the dead; 
its subjects have been sunk in moral and spiritual death. But this 
has been permitted only in order that the Grace or Goodwill of 
God might also set up its throne over a people fitted for its sway 
by the gift of righteousness, and therefore destined not for death 
but for eternal life—through the mediation of Jesus Messiah, our 
Lord. 


15. wapdrwpa: lit. ‘a slip or fall sideways,’ ‘a false step,’ 
‘a lapse’: hence metaph. in a sense not very dissimilar to aydprypa 


140 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 15, 16 


(which is prop. ‘missing a mark’). It is however appropriate 
that mapadrr. should be used for a ‘fall’ or first deflection from 
uprightness, just as dydpr. is used of the failure of efforts towards 
recovery. On the word see Trench, Syn. p. 237 f. 

tou évés: ‘the one man,’ t.¢e. Adam. 

ot wodAoi: ‘the many,’ practically = mdvras ver. 12; mdvras avOpa- 
nous in ver. 18, ‘all mankind.’ It is very misleading to translate 
as AV., ignoring the article, if ‘through the offence of ome, many 
be dead, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ 
Redemption like the Fall proceeds not from any chance member of 
the human race, and its effects extend not only to ‘many’ but to 
‘all’—to ‘all,’ that is potentially, if they embrace the redemption 
which is offered them, 


See Bentley, quoted by Lft. On Revision, p. 97, ‘By this accurate version 
some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute ‘reprobation 
had been happily prevented. Our English’ readers had then seen, what 
several of the Fathers saw and testified, that of roAAoi, the many, in an anti- 
thesis to the one, are equivalent to mav7es, a//, in ver. 12, and comprehend the 
whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of ¢he one.’ 


TONAG paddov. What we know of the character of God as dis- 
played in Christ makes us more certain of the good result than of 
the evil. 

4 Swped is more fully defined below (ver. 17) as 9 dwped rie 
&ixatocvyns : the gift is the condition of righteousness into which 
the sinner enters. dwped, ‘boon,’ like dépoy contrasted with dopa, 
is reserved for the highest and best gifts; so Philo, Leg. Adleg. iii. 
70 eupagw peyOous teheiwy dyabay dnhoiuw (Lft. Rev. p. 77); comp. 
also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. i. 17. 

év xdpitt goes closely with 7 deped. In classical Greek we should 
have had the art. 9 év xdperr, but in Hellenistic Greek a qualifying 
phrase is attached to a subst. without repetition of the art. Mey. 
however and some others (including Lid.) separate é» xdper: from 4 
deped and connect it with érepiccevee. 


xépis is more often applied to God the Father, and is exhibited im the 
whole scheme of salvation As applied to Christ it is (1) that active favour 
towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf. esp. 
a Cor. viii. 9); (2) the same active favour shown to the individual by the 
Father and the Son conjointly (Rom. i. 7 q. v.). 


16 The absence of verbs is another mark of compressed anti- 
thetic style. With the first clause we may supply éori, with the 
second eyévero: ‘And not as through one man’s sinning, so is the 
boon. For the judgement sprang from one to condemnation, but 
the free gift sprang from many trespasses (and ended in) a declara- 
tion of righteousness.’ In the one case there is expansion out- 
wards, from one to many: in the other case there is contraction 


V. 16-18.] ADAM AND CHRIST 141 


inwards; the movement originates with many sins which are all 
embraced in a single sentence of absolution. 

Sixatwpa: usually the decision, decree, or ordinance by which 
a thing is declared dikaov (that which gives a thing the force of 
‘right’); here the decision or sentence by which persons are 
declared Sica, The sense is determined by the antithesis to xara- 
cpa, OSixaiopa bears to dixaiwors the relation of an act completed 
to an act in process (see p. 31 sup.). 

17. ToAN® paddov. Here the @ fortiori argument lies in the 
nature of the two contrasted forces: God’s grace must be more 
powerful in its working than man’s sin. 

Thy Teptocetay... THs Swpeds THs Sexaroodvys AapBdvovres. Every 
term here points to that gift of righteousness here described as 
something objective and external to the man himself, not wrought 
within him but coming to him, imputed not infused. It has its 
source in the overflow of God’s free favour; it is a gift which man 
receives: see pp. 25, 30f., 36 above. 

Baoidedcouct. The metaphor is present to St. Paul’s mind; 
and having used it just before of the prevalence of Death, he 
naturally recurs to it in the sense more familiar to a Christian of 
his share in the Messianic blessings, of which the foremost was 
a heightened and glorified vitality, that ‘ eternal life’ which is his 
already in germ. 

Sta tod Evds "Ingots Xptotod. The dia here covers the whole media- 
tion of the Son in reference to man : it is through His Death that the 
sinner on embracing Christianity enters upon the state of righteous- 
ness, and through the union with Him which follows that his whole 
being is vitalized and transfigured through time into eternity. 

18. This and the three following verses, introduced by the 
strongly illative particles dpa o¢v, sum up the results of the whole 
comparison between Adam and Christ: the resemblance is set 
forth in vv. 18, 19; the difference and vast preponderance of the 
scale of blessing in vv. 20, 21. 

Again we have a condensed antithesis—the great salient strokes 
confronting each other without formal construction : origin, extent, 
issue, alike parallel and alike opposed. ‘ As then, through one lapse, 
to all men, unto condemnation—so also, through one justifying act, 
to all men, unto justification of life.’ There are two difficulties, 
the interpretation of 8: évés 8xaroparos and of Sixaiwow fo7s. 

Se évds Stxardpartos. Does dixaiopa here mean the same thing 
as in ver. 16? If so, it is the sentence by which God declares 
men righteous on account of Christ’s Death. Or is it the merit 
of that Death itself, the ‘righteous act,’ or imaxon, of Christ? A 
number of scholars (Holsten, Va. Lips. Lid.) argue that it must 
be the latter in order to correspond with 8/ éds mapantaparos. So 
too Euthym.-Zig. 8? eds dixaioparos rod KX. ryv dxpav Sieaoodivys 


142 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 18, 19. 


merAnpoxdros. But it seems better, with Mey. Gif. and others, to 
give the same sense to dxaiwpa as in ver. 16. We saw that there 
the sense was fixed by xaraxptua, which is repeated in the present 
verse. On the other hand it is doubtful whether éxaiopa can quite 
=‘a righteous act.’ God’s sentence and the act of Christ are so 
inseparable that the one may be used in the antithesis as naturally 
as the other. 

It is best also to follow the natural construction of the Greek 
and make és neut. in agreement with dixawp. (Mey.-W. Va. 
Gif.) rather than masc. (Lips.). 

Stkatwoww Lwys. ‘Life’ is both the immediate and ultimate result 
of that state of things into which the Christian enters when he is 
declared ‘ righteous’ or receives his sentence of absolution. 

19. Sa THs TapoKojs .. . Sa THs Smraxoys. It is natural that 
this aspect of the Fall as mapaxoy should be made prominent in 
a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express command 
in enhancing the heinousness of sin. It is natural also that in 
antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of 
Christ its special aspect as taxon: cf. Heb. v. 8,9; Matt. xxvi. 
39; Phil. ii. 8. On the word zapaxon (‘a failing to hear,’ encuria, 
and thence zzobedientia) see Trench, Syn. p. 234. 

KateoTd@yoov . .. kataota0yoortat: ‘ were constituted’... ‘ shall 
be constituted.’ But in what sense ‘constituted’? The Greek 
word has the same ambiguity as the English. If we define further, 
the definition must come from the context. Here the context is 
sufficiently clear: it covers on the one hand the whole result of 
Adam’s Fall for his descendants prior to and independently of their 
own deliberate act of sin; and it covers on the other hand the 
whole result of the redeeming act of Christ so far as that too is 
accomplished objectively and apart from active concurrence on the 
part of the Christian. The fut. xaracraéjvovrat has reference not to 
the Last Judgement but to future generations of Christians ; to all 
in fact who reap the benefit of the Cross. 


When St. Paul wrote in Gal. ii. 15 pets pice Tovdator, wat ove ef eOvav 
dyaprwdoi, he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of his 
countrymen) that Gentiles would be regarded as g¢vce duaprwdol: they 
belonged ‘to the class’ of sinners; just as we might speak of a child as 
belonging to the ‘criminal class’ before it had done anything by its own act 
to justify its place in that class. The meaning of the text is very similar: 
so far as it relates to the effects of the Fall of Adam it must be interpreted 
by vv. 12-14; and so far as it relates to the effects of the Death of Christ 
it is parallel to vv. 1, 2 Sixambévres ody [ex migTews] eipnyny Exonev (con- 
tained in éxwpev) mpds Tov Ocdv a Tod Kupiov Huey “I. X., &’ of kal TH 
mpocayeryiv éoxnkapev eis THY Xap ev F EcTHxauev. For the use of xai- 
orac@a there is a good parallel in Xen. Mem. ii. 1. g “Ey ovy Tots pev 
Bovdopévous modAAd mpayyata éxew .. . eis Tos apytKovs KaTacTHoAL, Where 
wataor. = els Tovs dpxixods TatToOMey (sup.) and éyauTdy ratTw els Tods 


Bou? >pévous (sf). 


V. 20, 21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 143 


20. waperon\Oev : ‘come in to the side of a state of things already 
existing.’ St. Paul regarded Law as a ‘ parenthesis’ in the Divine 
plan: it did not begin until Moses, and it ended with Christ 
(cp. iv. 13-16; x. 4). Here however he has in view only its late 
beginning: it is a sort of ‘ after-thought’ (see the Paraphrase). 


‘Why did he not say the Law was given, but the Law entered by the way? 
It was to show that the need of it was temporary and not absolute or 
claiming precedence’ (zpécka:pov aitod Sexvis tiv xpeiay ovcay, wal ov 
xupiay ov5é mponyoupevny) Chrys. 
ta mAeovdon. For the force of fa comp. els 1d efvat avrovs avaro- 
Moyyjrous i. 20: the multiplication of transgression is not the first 
and direct object of law, but its second and contingent object: law 
only multiplies trangression because it is broken and so converts 
into deliberate sin acts which would not have had that character if 
they had not been so expressly forbidden. 


To 82 {va évrada ove alriodoyias wad GAN’ &xBaoeds torw. Od yap dia 
TovTo &566n iva wAcovacn, GAX’ 5607 piv Gore pacar wat avedeiv 7d wapa- 
mropa é€Bn St Tovvavtiov, ov mapa TY TOD vopou Puc, GAG Tapa THY TOY 
defapevow fabuyiay (Chrys.): a note which shows that the ancients were quite 
aware of the ecbatic sense of iva (see on xi. 11). 


meovdon, as Va. remarks, might be transitive, but is more 
probably intransitive, because of émAcévacey 7 auapr. which follows. 

7o Wapdmrwpa: Seems expressly chosen in order to remind us 
that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such 
repetitions of the sin of Adam. 

21. év to Gavdtw. Sin reigns, as it were, over a charnel-house ; 
the subjects of its empire are men as good as dead, dead in every 
sense of the word, dead morally and spiritually, and therefore 
doomed to die physically (see on vi. 8 below). 

S14 Stxacocdvyns. The reign of grace or Divine favour is made 
possible by the gift of righteousness which the Christian owes to 
the mediation of Christ, and which opens up for him the prospect 
of eternal life. 


St. Paul’s Conception of Sin and of the Fall. 


St. Paul uses Greek words, and some of those which he ases 
cannot .be said to have essentially a different meaning from that 
which attached to them on their native soil; and yet the different 
relations in which they are placed and the different associations 
which gather round them, convey what is substantially a different 
idea to the mind. 

The word dyapria with its cognates is a case in point. The 
eorresponding term is Hebrew has much the same original sense 


144 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS LV. 12-21 


of ‘missing a mark.’ Both words are used with a higher and a 
lower meaning; and in both the higher meaning belongs to the 
sphere of religion. So that the difference between them is not in 
the words themselves but in the spirit of the religions with which 
they are connected. 

This appears upon the face of it from the mere bulk of literary 
usage. In classical Greek dyapria, duapravew are common enough - 
in the lighter senses of ‘ missing an aim,’ of ‘error in judgement or 
opinion’; in the graver sense of serious wrong-doing they are 
rare. When we turn to the Bible, the LXX and the N.T. 
alike, this proportion is utterly reversed. The words denote nearly 
always religious wrong-doing, and from being in the background 
they come strongly to the front; so much so that in the Concord 
ance to the LXX this group of words fills some thirteen columns, 
averaging not much less than eighty instances to the column. 

This fact alone tells its own story. And along with it we must 
take the deepening of meaning which the words have undergone 
through the theological context in which they are placed. ‘How can 
I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?’ (Gen. xxxix. 9). 
Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is 
evil in Thy sight’ (Ps. li. 4). ‘ Behold, all souls are Mine; as the 
soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul 
that sinneth, it shall die’ (Ezek. xviii. 4). We have travelled a long 
way from Hellenic religion in such utterances as these. 

It is impossible to have an adequate conception of sin without 
an adequate conception of God. The Hebrew in general, and 
St. Paul in particular, had this; and that is why Sin is such an 
intense reality to them. It is not a mere defect, the coming short 
of an ideal, the mark of an imperfect development. It is some- 
thing more than a negation; it is a positive quality, calling forth 
a positive reaction. It is a personal offence against a personal 
God. It is an injury or wound—if the reaction which it involves 
may be described in such human terms as ‘injury’ or ‘ wound ’— 
directed against the Holy One whose love is incessantly going forth 
towards man. It causes an estrangement, a deep gulf of separation, 
between God and man. 

The guilt of sin is proportioned to the extent to which it is 
conscious and deliberate. Wrong actions done without the know- 
ledge that they are wrong are not imputed to the doer (duapria 8 ovx 
e\Noyeirae py Svtos vdpou Rom. v. 13: cf. iv. 15). But as a matter 
of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhere— 
even among the heathen—there is some knowledge of God and of 
right and wrong (Rom. i. i9f.; ii. 12, 14 f.), and the extent of that 
knowledge determines the degree of guilt. Where there is a written 
law like that of the Jews stamped with Divine authority, the guilt is 
at its height. But this is but the climax of an ascending scale in 


V. 12-21] ADAM AND CHRIST lar 
which the heinousness of the offence is proportioned te advantages 
and opportunities. 

Why did men break the Law? In other words, Why did they 
sin? When the act of sin came to be analyzed it was found to 
contain three elements. Proximately it was due to the wicked 
impulses of human nature. The Law condemned illicit desires, but 
men had such desires and they succumbed to them (Rom. vii. 
4 ff.). The reason of this was partly a certain corruption of 
human nature inherited from Adam. The corruption alone would 
not have been enough apart from the consentient will; neither 
would the will have been so acted upon if it had not been for 
the inherited corruption (Rom. v. 12-14). But there was yet a third 
element, independent of both these. They operated through the 
man himself; but there was another influence which operated with- 
out him. It is remarkable how St. Paul throughout these chapters, 
Rom. v, vi, vii, constantly personifies Sin as a pernicious and deadly 
force at work in the world, not dissimilar in kind to the other great 
counteracting forces, the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel. 
Now personifications are not like dogmatic definitions, and the 
personification in this instance does not always bear exactly the 
same meaning. In ch. v, when it is said that ‘Sin entered into the 
world,’ the general term ‘ Sin’ includes, and is made up of, the sins 
of individuals. But in chaps. vi and vii the personified Sin is set 
over against the individual, and expressly distinguished from him. 
Sin is not to be permitted to reign within the body (vi. 12); the 
members are not to be placed at the disposal of Sin (vi. 13); to 
Sin the man is enslaved (vi. 6, 17, 20; vii. 14), and from Sin he is 
emancipated (vi. 18, 22), or in other words, it is to Sin that he dies 
(vi. 9, 11); Sin takes up its abode within his heart (vii. 17, 20): 
it works upon him, using the commandment as its instrument, and 
so is fatal to him (vii. 8, 11). 

In all this the usage is consistent: a clear distinction is drawn 
at once between the will and the bodily impulses which act upon 
the will and a sort of external Power which makes both the will and 
the impulses subservient to it. What is the nature of this Power? 
Is it personal or impersonal? We could not tell from this particular 
context. No doubt personal attributes and functions are assigned 
to it, but perhaps only figuratively as part of the personification. 
To answer our questions we shall have to consider the teaching of 
the Apostle elsewhere. It is clear enough that, like the rest of his 
countrymen (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 52f.), St. Paul did 
believe in a personal agency of Evil. He repeatedly uses the per- 
sonal name Satan; he ascribes to him not only mischief-making in 
the Church (1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 11), but the direct tempta- 
tion of individual Christians (1 Cor. vii. 5); he has his followers on 
whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (1 Cor. v. 5; 


L 


146 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-21. 


1 Tim. i. 20); supernatural powers of deceiving or perverting men 
are attributed to him (2 Thess. ii. 9 xar’ evépyetav rod Sarava ev macy 
Suvdper kai onpetors kai tépace Wevdous: cf. 2 Cor. xi. 14). The 
Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole 
army of subordinate agents (dpyai, efovota, koopoxpdropes Tov oKérous 
rovrov Eph. vi. 12; cf. Col. ii. 15). There is indeed a whole 
hierarchy of evil spirits as there is a hierarchy of good (Eph. i. 21), 
and Satan has a court and a kingdom just as God has. He is ‘the 
god of the existing age’ (6 Océs rod aiévos rovrov 2 Cor. iv. 4), and 
exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. ii. 
8 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 24 f.). 

We see therefore that just as in the other books of the N.T. 
the Gospels, the Apocalypse, and the other Apostolic Epistles, evil 
is referred to a personal cause. And although it is doubtless true 
that in chaps. vi, vii, where St. Paul speaks most directly of the 
baleful activity of Sin, he does not intend to lay special stress on 
this; his language is of the nature of personification and does not 
necessarily imply a person; yet, when we take it in connexion with 
other language elsewhere, we see that in the last resort he would 
have said that there was a personal agency at work. It is at least 
clear that he is speaking of an influence external to man, and 
acting upon him in the way in which spiritual forces act. 


St. Paul regards the beginnings of sin as traceable to the Fall of Adam, 
In this he is simply following the account in Gen. iii; and the question 
naturally arises, What becomes of that account and of the inferences which 
St. Paul draws from it, if we accept the view which is pressed upon us by 
the comparative study of religions and largely adopted by modern criticism, 
that it 1s not to be taken as a literal record of historical fact, but as the 
Hebrew form of a story common to a number of Oriental peoples and going 
back to a common root?’ When we speak of a * Hebrew form’ of this story 
we mean a form shaped and moulded by those principles of revelation of 
which the Hebrew race was chosen to be the special recipient. From this 
point of view it becomes the typical and summary representation of a series 
of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half-calcined bones can 
ever reproduce for us. In some way or other as far back as history goes, 
and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human 
race this mysterious seed of sin, which like other characteristics of the race 
is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who 
is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until 
it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of 
a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be 
possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious 
distinction of right and wrong, we can but vaguely speculate. Whatever it 
was we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination 
of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative 
assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in 
that narrative—the recognition of the Divine Will, the act of disobedience 
to the Will so recognized, the perpetuation of the tendency to such dis- 
obedience ; and we may add perhaps, though here we get into a region of 
surmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest 
pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part of us, the soul, 


Vv. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 147 


through righteousness to God. These salient principles, which may have 
been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are 
naturally and inevitably summed up asa group of single incidents. Their 
essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive 
beliefs we may safely remember that ‘a thousand years in the sight of God 
are but as one day.’ We who believe in Providence and who believe in the 
active influence of the Spirit of God upon man, may well also believe that 
the tentative gropings of the primaeval savage were assisted and guided and 
so led up to definite issues, to which he himself perhaps at the time could 
hardly give a name but which he learnt to call ‘ sin’ and ‘ disobedience,’ and 
the tendency to which later ages also saw to have been handed on from 
generation to generation in a way which we now describe as ‘heredity.’ It 
would be absurd to expect the language of modern science in the prophet 
who first incorporated the traditions of his race in the Sacred Books of the 
Hebrews. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelli- 
gence and that of his contemporaries. But if the language which he does 
use is from that point of view abundantly justified, then the application which 
St. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He too expresses truth through 
symbols, and in the days when men can dispense with symbols his teaching 
may be obsolete, but not before. 

The need for an Incarnation and the need for an Atonement are not” 
depencent upon any particular presentation, which may be liable to cor- 
rection with increasing knowledge, of the origin of sin. They rest, not on 
theory or on anything which can be clothed in the forms of theory, but on 
tke great outstanding facts of the actual sin of mankind and its ravages. 
We take these facts as we see them, and to us they furnish an abundant 
explanation of all that God has done to counteract them. How they are in 
their turn to be explained may well form a legitimate subject for curiosity, 
but the historical side of it at least has but a very slight bearing on the 
interpretation of the N.T. 


History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine 
of dtxalwors. 


In order to complete our commentary on the earlier portion of the Epistle, 
it will be convenient to sum up, as shortly as is possible, the history of the 
doctrine of Justification, so far as it is definitely connected with exegesis. 
To pursue the subject further than that would be beside our purpose; but so 
much is necessary since the exposition of the preceding chapters has been 
almost entirely from one point of view. We shall of course be obliged to 
confine ourselves to certain typical names. , 

Just at the close of the Apostolic period the earliest speculation on the Clemens 
subject of Justification meets us. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Romanus 
Corinthians, writes clearly guarding against any practical abuses which may 
arise from St. Paul’s teaching. He has before him the three writers of the 
N.T. who deal most definitely with ‘faith’ and ‘righteousness,’ and from 
them constructs a system of life and action. He takes the typical example, 
that of Abraham, and asks, ‘ Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed ?” 
The answer combines that of St. Paul and St. James. ‘ Was it not because 
he wrought righteousness and truth through faith ?” (§ 31 cdx? d:xacootyny Kat 
GAnbeav Sid rictews tomoas;). And throughout there is the same co- 
ordination of different types of doctrine. ‘ We are justified by works and not 
by words’ (§ 30 épyots d:xarodpevar kal pi Adyos). But again (§ 32): ‘And 
so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified 
through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or 
works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but throngh faith whereby the 
Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning.’ But 

La 


Origen. 


148 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-27. 


dangerous theories as to conduct, which arise from holding such beliefs in 
too crude a manner, are at once guarded against (§ 33): ‘ What then must 
we do, brethren? Must we idly abstain from doing good, and forsake love? 
May the Master never allow this to befall us at least... We have seen that 
all the righteous were adomed in good works ... Seeing then that we have 
this pattern, let us conform ourselves with all diligence to His will; let us 
with all our strength work the work of righteousness.’ Clement writes as 
a Christian of the second generation who inherits the teaching and phraseo- 
logy of the Apostolic period. ‘ Faith,’ ‘Works,’ ‘ Righteousness,’ are ideas 
which have become part of the Christian life; the need of definition has not 
arisen. The system of conduct which should be exhibited as the result of 
the different elements of this life is clearly realized. What St. Paul and 
St. James each in his different way arrived at is accomplished. For the 
exact meaning of St. Paul, however, and the understanding of his teaching, 
we get no aid. Bishop Lightfoot, while showing how Clement ‘has caught 
the spirit of the Pauline teaching,’ yet dwells, and dwells rightly, on ‘ the 
d2fect in the dogmatic statement. (See Lightfoot, Clement, i. 96, 397-) 

The question of Justification never became a subject of controversy ze the 
early church, and consequently the Fathers contented themselves as Clement 
had done with a clear practical solution. We cannot find in them either an 
answer to the more subtle questions which later theologians have asked or 
much assistance as to the exact exegesis of St. Paul’s language. 

How little Origen had grasped some points in St. Paul’s thought may bt 
seen by his comment on Rom. iii. 20 Ex operibus igitur legis quod non iusti- 
Jicabitur omnis caro in conspectu eius, hoc modo intelligendum puto: guia 
omnis gui caro e:t et secundum carnem vivit, non potest iustificari ex 
lege Det, sicut et alibi dictt idem Apostolus, guia qui in came sunt Deo 
placere non possunt (t# Rom. iii. 6; Opp. tom. vi. 194, ed. Lommatzsch). 
But in many points his teaching is clear and strong. All Justification is by 
faith alone (ili. 9, p. 217 e¢ dicet sufficere solius fidet tustificationem, tta ut 
eredens quis tantummodo iustificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit 
expletum). It is the beginning of the Christian life, and is represented as 
the bringing to an end of a state of enmity. We who were followers of the 
devil, our tyrant and enemy, can if we will by laying down his arms and 
taking up the banner of Christ have peace with God, a peace which has 
been purchased for us by the blood of Christ (iv. 8, p. 285, on Rom. v. 1). 
The process of justification is clearly one of ‘imputation’ ( fides ad tustitiam 
reputetur iv. I, p. 240, on Rom. iy. 1-8), and is identified with the Gospel 
teaching of the forgiveness of sins; the two instances of it which are quoted 
being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of ointment 
(Luke vii. 37—42). But the need for good works is not excluded: sed 
Jortassts haec aliguis audiens resolvatur et bene agendi negligentiam capiat, 
si quidem ad tustificandum fides sola sufficiat. ad quem dicemus, quia post 
sustificationem si iniuste quis agat, sine dubio iustificationis gratiam sprevit 
... ndulgentia namque non futurorum sed praeteritorum criminurt datur 
(iii. 9, p. 219, on Kom. iii. 27, 28). Faith without works is impossible 
(iv. 1, p. 234): rather faith is the root from which they spring: mom ergo 
ex operibus radix tustitiae, sed ex radice tustitiae fructus operum crescit, 
slla sctlicet radice iustitiae, qua Deus acceplo fert tustitiam sine opertbus 
(iv. 1, p. 241 3 see also the comment on Rom. ii. 5, 6 in ii. 4, p. 81). We 
may further note that in the comment on Rom. i. 17 and iii. 24 the zustitia 
Dez is clearly interpreted as the Divine attribute. 

The same criticism which was passed on Origen applies in an equal 
or even greater degree to Chrysostom. Theologically and practically the 
teaching is vigorous and well balanced, but so far as exegesis is con- 
cemed St. Paul’s conception and point of view are not understood. The 
circumstances which had created these conceptions no longer existed 


V. 12-21.) ADAM AND CHRIST 149 


For example, commenting on Rom. ii. to he writes: ‘it is upon works 
that punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision or uncircum- 
cision’; making a distinction which the Apostle does not between the 
moral and ceremonial law. The historical situation is clearly grasped and 
is brought ont very well at the beginning of Hom. vii: ‘He has accused 
the Gentiles, he has accused the Jews; what follows to mention next is the 
righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and 
the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those that 
used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater 
= unishment, then the salvation which is by grace was henceforth necessary.’ 

e meaning of Satocivn @eod is well brought out. ‘The declaring of 
His righteousness is not only that He is Himself righteous, but that IIe 
doth also make them that are Yalled with the putrefying scars of sin suddenly 
righteous’ (Hom. vii. on ili. 24, 25). It may be interesting to quote the 

exposition of the passage which follows. He explains da ri Mapecw Tay 
mpoyeyoveraw Gyaprnuaray thus: da TH wapeow, TouvTéote Ti véKpwow, 
OvKETL Pig byeias éAmis Fv, GAXr’ daomep capa mapadvbéy THs avedev é5etTo 
XEipos, ovrw Kai 4 Yux7) vexpwOeica, giving wapecis the meaning of ‘ para- 
lysis,’ the paralysis of spiritual life which has resulted from sin. Generally 
Sixarda seems clearly to be taken as ‘make righteous,’ even in passages 
where it will least bear such an interpretation; for instance on iv. 5 (How. 
Vili.) Sdvara: 6 Oeds Tov &y doeBeia BEeBiwxdta TovTov éfaipvys ovxi KoAagEws 
PevOepdoa péovov, adda Kai Sixaioy rojoa, ... ef yap paxapios ovTwS 
6 AaBav dpeciw awd xapiros ToAAM pGAAov 6 SixawGeis, and on iv. 25 (Hom. 
ix) ént tovTy ydp kal awéGave kai avéctn iva Sixaious épydonrat. Yet his 

is not consistent, for on Rom. viii. 33 he writes: ‘He does not say, 
it is God that forgave our sins, but what is much greater :—“ It is God that 
justifieth.” For when the Judge’s sentence declares us just (d:caious dao- 
gaive), and such a judge too, what significth the accuser ?’ 

No purpose would be served by entering further into the views of the 
Greek commentators; but one passage of Theodoret may be quoted as 
an instance of the way in which all the fathers connect Justification and 
Baptism. On Rom. v. 1, 2 (vid. p. 53) he writes: 9 wiomss wiv dyty ebupy- 
caro Ta dpaprnudrow iy apeow kat a pdypous kai Stxaious dia THs TOU AovT pow 
mwahrryyevecias amepyve’ mpoonkes SE byGs tiv mpos Tov Gedy yeyernpevyy 
gpvudarrew eipayny. 

To sum up the teaching of the Greek Fathers. They put in the very 
front of everything, the Atonement through the death of Christ, without as 
a rule elaborating any theory concerning it : this characteristic we find from 
the very beginning: it is as strong in Ignatius as in any later Father: 
they all think that it is by faith we are justified, and at the same time lay 
immense stress on the value, but not the merits, of good works: they seem 
all very definitely to connect Justification with Baptism and the beginning 
of the Christian life, so much so indeed that as is well known even the 
possibility of pardon for post-baptismal sin was doubted by some : but they 
have no theory of Justification as later times demand it; they are never close 
and exact in the exegesis of St. Paul; and they are without the historical 
conditions which would enable them to understand his great antithesis of 
‘Law’ and ‘ Gospel,’ ‘ Faith’ and ‘ Works,’ ‘ Merit’ and ‘ Grace.’ 

The opinions of St. Augustine are of much greater importan e. Although 
he does not approach the question from the same point of view as the 
Reformation theologians, he represents the source from which came the 
mediaeval tendency which created that theology. His most important 
expositions are those contained in De Spivitu et Litera and In Psalmum 
XXXI Enarratio IT: this Psalm he describes as Psalmus gratiae Dei 
et tustificationis nostrae nullis praecedentibus meritis nostris, sed prae 
veniente nos misericordia Domins Dei nostri... His purpose is to prove 


Theodoret. 


St. Aagus 
tine. 


Aquinas, 


150 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 


as against any form of Pelagianism that our salvation comes from na 
merits of our own but only from the Divine grace which is given us. 
This leads to three main characteristics in his exposition of the Romans. 
(1) For, first, good works done by those who are not in a state of grace are 
valueless: memo computet bona opera sua ante fidem: ubi fides nom erat 
bonum opus non erat (E£narratio § 4). Hence he explains Rom. ii. 5, 
13 ff. of works done not in a state of nature but of grace. In ii. 13 the 
Apostle is referring to the Gentiles who have accepted the Gospel; and the 
‘Law written in their hearts’ is the law not of the O.T. but of the N.T.: 
he naturally compares 2 Cor. iii. 3 and Rom. ii. 26 (De Sp. et Lit. §§ 44- 
49). (2) Then, secondly, St. Augustine’s exposition goes on somewhat 
different lines from those of the Apostle’s argument. He makes the whole 
aim of the early portion of the Romans to be the proof of the necessity of 
grace. Men have failed without grace, and it is only by means of it that 
they can do any works which are acceptable to God. This from one point 
of view really represents St. Paul’s argument, from another it is very much 
removed from it. It had the tendency indeed to transfer the central point 
in connexion with human salvation from the atoning death of Christ accepted 
by Faith to the gift of the Divine Grace received from God. Although in 
this relation, as often, St. Augustine’s exposition is ceeper than that of the 
Greek fathers, it leads to a much less correct interpretation. (3) For, thirdly, 
there can be no doubt that it leads directly to the doctrine of ‘ infused’ grace. 
It is quite true that Chrysostom has perhaps even mote definitely interpreted 
Sixatovc@a of ‘making just,’ and that Augustine in ‘one place admits the 
possibility of interpreting it either as ‘making just’ or ‘reckoning just’ 
(De Sp. et Lit. § 45). But although he admits the two interpretations so 
far as concerns the words, practically his whole theory is that of an infusion 
of the grace of faith by which men are made just. Se in his comment on 
i. 17 he writes: haec est iustitia Det, quae in Testamasto Veteri velata, in 
Nove revelatur: quae ideo iustitia Det dicitur, guod impertiendo eam iustos 
facit (De Sp. e¢ Lit. § 18): and again: credenti inguit in eum que tustificat 
tmpium deputatur fides eius adiustitiam. sé tustificatur impius ex impio 
fit iustus (Znarratio § 6): so non tibt Deus reddit debitam poenam, sea 
donat indebitam gratiam: so De Sp. et Lit. § 56: haec est iustitia Det, 
quam non solum docet per legis pracceptum, verum etiam dat per Spiritus 
donum. 

St. Augustine’s theory is in fact this; faith is a gift of grace wmich in- 
fused into men, enables them to produce works good and acceptable te 
God. The point of view is clearly not that of St. Paul, and it is the source of 
the mediaeval theory of grace with all its developments. 

This theory as we find it elaborated in the Summa Theologiae, has so far 
as it concerns us three main characteristics, (1) In the first place it elaborates 
the Augustinian theory of Grace instead of the Pauline theory of Justification. 
It is quite clear that in St. Paul xéprs is the favour of God to man, and not 
a gift given by God to man; but gratia in St. Thomas has evidently this 
latter signification: cum gratia omnem naturae creatae facultatem excedat, e0 
quod nihil aliud sit quam partictpatio quaedam divinae naturat quae omnem 
aliam naturam excedit (Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae Qu. cxii. 1). So 
also: donum gratiae ... gratiae infusio.. . infundit donum gratiae iustifi- 
cantis (cxiii. 3). (2) Secondly, it interprets zxstzficare to ‘make just,’ and in 
consequence looks upon justification as not only remissto peccatorum, but also 
an infusion of grace. This question is discussed fully in Qu. cxiii. Art. 2. 
The conclusion arrived at is: guum iustitiae Det repugnet poenam dimittere 
vigente culpa, nullius autem hominis qualis modo nascitur, reatus poenae 
absque gratia tolli queat ; ad culpae quogue hominis qualis modo nascitur, 
vemissionem, gratiae infusionem require manifestum est. The primary text 
oa which this conclusion is based is Rom, iii. 24 sustificatt gratis per grattam 


V. 12-21.] ADAM AND CHRIST 151 


ipsius, wuich is therefore clearly interpreted to mean ‘ made just by an infusion 
of grace’; and it is argued that the effect of the Divine love on us is grace by 
which a man is made wo ‘thy of eternal life, and that therefore remission of 
guilt cannot be understood unless it be accompanied by the infusion of grace. 
(3) The words quoted above, ‘by which a man is made worthy of eternal 
life’ (dignus vita aeterna) int ‘oduce us to a third point in the mediaeval theory 
of justification: indirectly by its theory of merit ae con,. ~ and de condione 
it introduced just that doctrine of merit against which St. Paul had directed 
his whole system. This subject is worked out in Qu. cxiv, where it is argued 
(Art. 1) that in a sense we can deserve something from God. Although 
(Art. 3) a man cannot deserve life eternal in a state of nature, yet (Art. 3) 
after justification he can: Homo meretur uttam acternam ex condigno. This 
is supported by Rom. viii. 17 s7 filzt et haeredes, it being argued that we are 
sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex tfs0 ture adoptions. 

However defensible as a complete whole the system of the Summa may be, 
there is no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the popular 
mind, and that the teaching it represents led to a wide system of religious 
corruption which presented a very definite analogy with the errors which 
St. Paul combated; it is equally clear that it is not the system of Justificas 
tion put forward by St. Paul. It will be convenient to pass on directly to 
the teaching of Luther, and to put it in direct contrast with the teaching of 
Aquinas. Although it arose primarily against the teaching of the later 
Schoolmen, whose teaching, especially on the subject of merit de congruo and 
de condigne, was very much developed, substantially it represents a revolt 
against the whole mediaeval theory. 

Luther’s main doctrines were the following. Through the law man learns Luthey 
his sinfulness: he learns to say with the prophet, ‘there is none that doeth 
good, no not one.’ He learns his own weakness. And then arises the cry: 
‘Who can give me any help?’ Then in its due season comes the saving 
word of the Gospel, ‘Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven. 
Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for thy sins.’ This is the beginning 
of salvation ; in this way we are freed from sin, we are justified and there is 
given unto us life eternal, not on account of our own merits and works, but 
on account of faith by which we approached Christ. (Luther on Galatians 
ii. 16; Opp. ed. 1554, p. 308.) 

As against the mediaeval teaching the following points are noticeable, 
(1) In the first place Justification is quite clearly a doctrine of ‘tustitia 
tmputata’: Deus acceptat seu reputat nos iustos solum propier fidem in 
Christum. It is especially stated that we are not free from sin. As long as 
we live we are subject to the stain of sin: only our sins are not imputed to 
us. (2) Secondly, Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of 
jides tnformis and fides formata cum charitate; but whereas they had con- 
sidered that it was fides formata which justifies, with him it is fides exformzs. 
He argued that if it were necessary that faith should be united with charity 
to enable it to justify, then it is no longer faith alone that justifies, but 
charity: faith becomes useless and good works are brought in. (3) Thirdly, 
it is needless to point out that he attacks, and that with great vigour, all 
theories of merit de congruo and de condigno. He describes them thus: ‘alia 
monstra portenta et horribiles blasphemiae debebant proponi Turces et Iudaets, 
non ecclesiae Christi. 

The teaching of the Reformation worked a complete change in the exegesis Calvim. 
of St. Paul. A condition of practical error had arisen, clearly in many 
ways resembling that which St. Paul combated, and hence St. Paul’s con- 
ceptions are understood better. The ablest of the Reformation commentaries 
is certainly that of Calvin; and the change produced may be seen most 
clearly in one point. The attempt that had been made to evade the meanin 
of St. Paul’s words as to Law, by applying them only to the eon 


Cornelius 
a Lapide. 


452 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-a1. 


Law, he entirely brushes away (on iii. 20); again, he interprets in pp as 
“to reckon just,’ in accordance with the meaning of the Greek word and the 
context of iv. 5. The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther is 
applied to the interpretation of the Epistle, but his extravagant language is 
avoided. The distinction of fides informis and formata is condemned as 
unreal; and it is seen that what St. Paul means by works being unable to 
justify is not that they cannot do so in themselves, but that no one can fulfil 
them so completely as to be ‘just.’ We may notice that on ii. 6 he points 
out that the words can be taken in quite a natural sense, for reward does not 
imply merit, and on ii. 13 that he applies the passage to Gentiles not in 
a state of grace, but says that the words mean that although Gentiles had 
knowledge and opportunity they had sinned, and therefore would be neces- 
sarily condemned. 

The Reformation theology made St. Paul’s point of view comprehensible, 
but introduced errors of exegesis of its own. It added to St. Paul’s teaching 
of ‘imputation’ a theory of the imputation of Christ’s merits, which became 
the basis of much unreal systematization, and was an incorrect interpreta- 
ticn of St. Paul’s meaning. The unreal distinction of fides informis and 
Jormata, added to Luther’s own extravagant language, produced a strong 
antinomian tendency. ‘ Faith’ almost comes to be looked upon as a meritorious 
cause of justification; an unreal faith is substituted for dead works; and 
faith becomes identified with ‘ personal assurance’ or ‘self-assurance.’ More- 
over, for the ordinary expression of St. Paul, ‘we are justified by faith,’ 
was substituted ‘we are saved by faith,’ a phrase which, although once 
used by St. Paul, was only so used in the somewhat vague sense of oe, 
that at one time applies to our final salvation, at another to our present 
life within the fold of the Church; and the whole Christian scheme of 
sanctification, rightly separated in idea from justification, became divorced 
in fact from the Christian life. 

The Reformation teaching created definitely the distinction between zustztia 
tmputata and iustitia infisa, and the Council of Trent defined Justification 
thus: zustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiam sanctificatio 
et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et 
donorum (Sess. VI. cap. vii). : 

A typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of 
Cornelius a Lapide. On i. 17 he makes a very just distinction between our 
justification which comes by faith and our salvation which comes through 
the Gospel, namely, all that is preached in the Gospel, the death and merits 
of Christ, the sacraments, the precepts, the promises. He argues from ii. 1g 
that works have a place in justification ; and that our justification consists in 
the gift to us of the Divine justice, that is, of grace and charity and other 
virtues. 

This summary has been made sufficiently comprehensive to bring out the 
main points on which interpretation has varied. It is clear from St. Paul's 
language that he makes a definite distinction in thought between three 
several stages which may be named Justification, Sanctification, Salvation. 
Onur Christian life begins with the act of faith by which we turn to Christ; 
that is sealed in baptism through which we receive remission of sins and 
are incorporated into the Christian community, being made partakers of 
all the spiritual blessings which that implies: then if our life is consistent 
with these conditions we may hope for life eternal not for our own merits 
but for Christ’s sake. The first step, that of Remission of sins, is Justi- 
fication: the life that follows in the Christian community is the life of 
Sanctification. These two ideas are connected in time in so far as the 
moment in which our sins are forgiven begins the new life; but they are 
separated in thought, and it is necessary for us that this should be so, in 
order that we may realize that unless we come to Christ in the self-surrender 


VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 153 


of faith nothing can profit us. There is a close connexion again between 
Justification and Salvation ; the one represents the beginning of the process 
of which the other is the conclusion, and in so far as the first step is the 
essential one the life of the justified on earth can be and is spoken of as 
the life of the saved; but the two are separated both in thought and in 
time, and this is so that we may realize that our life, as we are accepted by 
faith, endowed with the gift of God’s Holy Spirit, and incorporated into the 
Christian community, must be holy. By our life we shall be judged (see the 
notes on ii. 6, 13): we must strive to make our character such as befits us 
for the life in which we hope to share: but we are saved by Christ’s death; 
and the initial act of faith has been the hand which we stretched out to 
receive the divine mercy. ; 

Our historical review has largely been a history of the confusion of these 
three separate aspects of the Gospel scheme. 


THE MYSTICAL UNION OF THE CHRISTIAN 
WITH CHRIST. 


VI. 1-14. Jf more sin only means more grace, shall we 
goon sinning? Impossible. The baptized Christian cannot 
sin. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things 
which baptism assumes. Baptism has a double function. 
(1) Lt brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, 
so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. 
(2) lt expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding te 
the redeeming acts of Christ. 

Immersion = Death. 
Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death). 
Emergence = Resurrection 

All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and 
Spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ. As 
Christ by His death on the Cross ceased from all contact with 
sin, so the Christian, united with Christ in his baptism, has 
done once for all with sin, and lives henceforth a reformed 
life dedicated to God. [This at least is the ideal. whatever 
may be the reality.| (vv. 1-11.) Act then as men who have 
thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers 
to God. Be not afraid; Law, Sin's ally, is superseded in 
tts hold over you by Grace (vv. 12-14). 


1QOsyector. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sin 
means more grace, are we not encouraged to go on sinning? 


154 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VI. 1-14. 


*St. Paut. A horrible thought! When we took the decisive 
step and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin, in 
such a way as would make it flat contradiction to live any longer 
in it. 

*Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were 
immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs, ‘ z#¢o Christ,’ 
i. e. into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him, were so 
immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. 1 mean 
that the Christian, at his baptism, not only professes obedience 
to Christ but enters into a relation to Him so intimate that it may 
be described as actual union. Now this union, taken in connexion 
with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism, implies a great deal more. 
That symbolism recalls to us with great vividness the redeeming 
acts of Christ—His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And our 
union with Christ involves that we shall repeat those acts, in 
such sense as we may, i.e. in a moral and spiritual sense, in our 
own persons. 

“When we descended into the baptismal water, that meant that 
we died with Christ—to sin. When the water closed over our 
heads, that meant that we lay buried with Him, in proof that our 
death to sin, like His death, was real. But this carries with it the 
third step in the process. As Christ was raised from among the 
dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power, so we also must from 
henceforth conduct ourselves as men in whom has been implanted 
a new principle of life. 

*For it is not to be supposed that we can join with Christ in 
one thing and not join with Him in another. If, in undergoing 
a death like His, we are become one with Christ as the graft 
becomes one with the tree into which it grows, we must also be 
one with Him by undergoing a resurrection like His, i.e. at once 
a moral, spiritual, and physical resurrection. ‘ For it is matter of 
experience that our Old Self—what we were before we became 
Christians—was nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism; 
it was killed by a process so like the Death of Christ and so 
wrought in conjunction with Him that it too may share in the 
name and associations of His Crucifixion. And the object of 
this crucifixion of our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of 
us, prolific home and haunt of sin, might be so paralyzed and 


VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 155 


disabled as henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. 7For 
just as no legal claim can be made upon the dead, so one who is 
(ethically) dead is certified ‘ Not Guilty’ and exempt from all the 
claims that Sin could make upon him. 

*But is this all? Are we to stop at the death to sin? No; 
there is another side to the process. If, when we became Chris- 
tians, we died with Christ (morally and spiritually), we believe that 
we shall also live with Him (physically, as well as ethically and 
spiritually): * because we know for a fact that Christ Himself, now 
that He has been once raised from the dead, will not have the 
process of death to undergo again. Death has lost its hold over 
Him for ever. *°For He has done with Death, now that He has 
done once for all with Sin, by bringing to an end that earthly 
state which alone brought Him in contact with it. Henceforth 
He lives in uninterrupted communion with God. 

"In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead, 
inert and motionless as a corpse, in all that relates to sin, but 
instinct with life and responding in every nerve to those Divine 
claims and Divine influences under which you have been brought 
by your union with Jesus Messiah. 

12] exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over 
this frail body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. *™ Do 
not, as you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons 
stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin; but dedicate 
yourselves once for all, like men who have left the ranks of the 
dead and breathe a new spiritual life, to God; let hand, eye, and 
tongue be weapons of righteous temper for Him to wield. “ You 
may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or 
power over you, for you have left the régzme of Law (which, as we 
shall shortly see, is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace. 


1. The fact that he has just been insisting on the function of sin 
to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the mind of the 
Apostle the accusation brought against himself of saying ‘Let us 
do evil, that good may come’ (iii. 8). He is conscious that his 
own teaching, if pressed to its logical conclusion, is open to this 
charge ; and he states it in terms which are not exactly those which 
would be used by his. adversaries but such as might seem to 
express the one-sided development of his own thought. Of course 
he does not allow the consequence for a moment; he repudiates 


156 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-3. 


it however not by proving a mon sequtfur, but by showing how this 
train of thought is crossed by another, even more fundamental. 
He is thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-doctrines, 
the Mystical Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his 
Baptism. Here we have another of those great elemental forces in 
the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinomian con- 
clusion such as might seem to be drawn from different premises. 
St. Paul now proceeds to explain the nature of this force and the 
way in which the Christian is related to it. 


The various readings in this chapter are unimportant. There can be no 
question that we should read émpévwpev for émpevodpey in ver. 1; Cjoopev 
and not (jcmpey in ver. 2; and that 7@ Kupiw 7uav should be omitted at the 
end of ver. 11. In that verse the true position of elva: is after éavrovs 
(S8* BC, Cyr.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc.): some inferior authorities place it after 
vexpods wév: the Western text (AD EF G, Tert.; cf. also Pesh. Boh. Arm. 
Aeth.) omits it altogether. 


2. ottwes dmefdvonev. Naturally the relative of quality: ‘we, 
being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin,’ &c. 

8. 4 dyvoetre: ‘Can you deny this, or is it possible that you are 
not aware of all that your baptism involves?’ St. Paul does not 
like to assume that his readers are ignorant of that which is to him 
so fundamental. The deep significance of Baptism was universally 
recognized ; though it is hardly likely that any other teacher would 
have expressed that significance in the profound and original 
argument which follows. 

eBanticOnpey eis Xpiotov “Incodv: ‘were baptized unto union 
with’ (not merely ‘ obedience to’) ‘Christ.’ The act of baptism 
was an act of zncorporation into Christ. Comp. esp. Gal. iii. 27 
Goo yap eis Xptorov eSantiaOnte, Xptorov evedioacbe. 

This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. All the 
consequences which St. Paul draws follow from this union, incor- 
poration, identification of the Christian with Christ. On the origin 
of the conception, see below. 

eis Tov Odvatov adtod €BanticOypey. This points back to ameOavopev 
above. The central point in the passage is death. The Christian 
dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death 
through his union with Christ. 

But why is baptism said to be specially ‘into Christ’s death’? 
The reason is because it is owing primarily to the Death of Christ 
that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism 
is such a changed condition. We have seen that St. Paul does 
ascribe to that Death a true objective efficacy in removing the 
barrier which sin has placed between God and man. Hence, as 
it is Baptism which makes a man a Christian, so is it the Death 
of Christ which wins for the Christian his special immunities 
and privileges. The sprinkling of the Blood of Christ seals that 


VI. 3-5.] UNION WITH CHRIST 159 


covenant with His People to which Baptism admits them. But this 
is only the first step: the Apostle goes on to show how the Death 
of Christ has a subjective as well as an objective side for the 
believer. 

4. cuverdédyper... Odvarov. A strong majority of the best 
scholars (Mey.-W. Gif. Lips. Oltr. Go.) would connect «is ros 
@dvarov With da rod Bartiouaros and not with ovveragdnper, because of 
(i) Sarr. eis tr. Gav. air. just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in 
the connexion of cuverag. with eis rév Gdvarov: death precedes burial 
and is not a result or object of it. We are not sure that this 
reasoning is decisive. (i) St. Paul does not avoid these ambiguous 
constructions, as may be seen by iii. 25 4» rpocero . . . dia Tis TicTews 
€v T® aitod atwart, where év To avrod aipart goes with mpoéGero and 
not with da ts miorews. (ii) The ideas of ‘ burial’ and ‘death’ are 
so closely associated that they may be treated as correlative to each 
other—burial is only death sealed and made certain. ‘ Our baptism 
was a sort of funeral ; a solemn act of consigning us to that death 
of Christ in which we are made one with Him,’ Va. (iii) There is 
a special reason for saying here not ‘ we were buried into burial,’ 
but ‘ we were buried into death,’ because ‘ death’ is the keynote of 
the whole passage, and the word would come in appropriately to 
mark the transition from Christ to the Christian. Still these argu- 
ments do not amount to proof that the second connexion is right, 
and it is perhaps best to yield to the weight of authority. For the 
idea compare esp. Col. ii. 12 cuvrapevres aita &v to Banticpats vo 
kat cuvnyepOnre. 

eis tov Odvatov is best taken as = ‘into that death (of His),’ the 
death just mentioned: so Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou., but not Mey.-W. 
Go., who prefer the sense ‘into death’ (in the abstract). In any 
case there is a stress on the idea of death ; but the clause and the 
verse which follow will show that St. Paul does not yet detach the 
death of the Christian from the death of Christ. 

Sta tHs 6&qs Tod watpds: ddéns here practically = ‘power’; but 
it is power viewed externally rather than internally ; the stress is 
laid not so much on the inward energy as on the signal and 
glorious manifestation, Va. compares Jo. xi. 40, 23, where ‘thou 
shalt see the glory of God’ = ‘thy brother shall rise again.’ See 
note on iii. 23. \~ 

5. cupodutoe: ‘united by growth’; the word exactly expresses 
the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree. 
So the Christian becomes ‘ grafted into’ Christ. For the metaphor 
we may compare Xi. 17 ov d€ dypiéAauos dv evexevtpiaOns év airtois, xat 
ovyxowaves THs pitys Kal THs TLuWT_TOS Ts €Aaias éyévov, and Tennyson’s 
‘grow incorporate into thee.’ 

It is a question whether we are to take cup. yeyor. directly with 
r@ Gpuowdp. «.7.A. or whether we are to supply r@ Xpior@ and make 


158 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 5, 6. 


T@ dyomp. dat. of respect. Probably the former, as being simpler 
and more natural, so far at least as construction is concerned, 
though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning which would be 
more exactly represented by the fuller phrase. Such condensed 
and strictly speaking inaccurate expressions are common in 
language of a quasi-colloquial kind. St. Paul uses these freer 
modes of speech and is not tied down by the rules of formal 
literary composition. 

6. ywdoxovtes: see Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. viii. 1 (p. 299), where 
y'vooxe as contrasted with oida is explained as signifying ‘ apprecia- 
tive or experimental acquaintance.’ A slightly different explanation 
is given by Gif. ad loc., ‘ noting this,’ as of the idea involved in the 
fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding 
(vois). 

6 tahatés Hpdv GvOpwmos: ‘our old self’; cp. esp. Suicer, Zhes. 
i. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected () mporépa 
modireta Theodrt.; 6 xareyvwopévos Bios Euthym,-Zig., &c.). 


This phrase, with its correlative 6 xaivds tv@pmmos, is a marked link of 
connexion between the acknowledged and disputed Epp. (cf. Eph. ii. 15; 
iv. 22, 24; Col. iii. 9). The coincidence is the more remarkable as the 

‘ phrase would hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon 
the necessity for a change of life, and may be a coinage of St. Paul's. It 
‘should be noted however that 6 évrds dv@pwros goes back to Plato (Grm. 
Thay. s. v. dv@pwros, I. €.). 


ouvveotaupeby: cf. Gal. ii. 20 Xpior® cvvecratpwuat. There is a differ- 
ence between the thought here and in /mzt. X?z. II. xii. 3 ‘Behold! in the 
cross all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying thereon; for there is no 
other way unto life, and unto true inward peace, but the way of the holy 
cross, and of dafly mortification.’ This is rather the ‘taking up the cross’ 
of the Gospels, which is a daily process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for 
such a process (Col. iii. 5, &c.) ; but here he is going back to that which is 
its root, the one decisive ideal act which he regards as taking place in 
baptism: in this the more gradual lifelong process is anticipated. 


xatapynor. For xarapyeiv see on iii. 3. The word is appro- 
priately used in this connexion: ‘that the body of sin may be 
paralyzed,’ reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and 
inaction, as if it were dead. 

16 cGpa Tis duaptias: the body of which sin has taken posses- 
sion. Parallel phrases are vii. 24 tod adparos tod Gavatov Tovrov: 
Phil. iii. 21 76 cpa tis tamewaoews Huov: Col, ii. IT [ev Th] ameK- 
Neer] rod caparos ths capxés. The gen. has the general sense of 
“belonging to,’ but acquires a special shade of meaning in each 
case from the context; ‘the body which is given over to death,’ 
‘the body in its present state of degradation,’ ‘ the body which is 
so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.’ 

Here 76 c&pa ris duaptias must be taken closely together, because 
it is not the body, szmply as such, which is to be killed, but the 


VI. 6-10.] UNION WITH CHRIST 159 


body as the seat of sin. This is to be killed, so that Sin may lose 
its slave. 

TOU pyKéte Soudevetv. On rod with inf. as expressing purpose see 
esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 342. 

TH Gpaptia: duapria, as throughout this passage, is personified as 
a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. 

7. 6 yap dmoavav. . . dpaptias. The argument is thrown into 
the form of a general proposition, so that 6 amo@avev must be taken 
in the widest sense, ‘he who has undergone death in any sense of 
the term ’—physical or ethical. The primary sense is however 
clearly physical: ‘a dead man has his quittance from any claim 
that Sin can make against him’: what is obviously true of the 
physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp. 
1 Pet. iv. 1 67¢ 6 waOav capki wémavrat duaprias: also the Rabbinical 
parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad Joc. ‘ when a man is dead he is free 
from the law and the commandments.’ 


Delitzsch goes so far as to describe the idea as an ‘acknowledged Locus 
communis, which would considerably weaken the force of the literary 
coincidence between the two Apostles. 


SeSixatwrat dws tis auaptias. The sense of dedixaiwra: is still 
forensic: ‘is declared righteous, acquitted from guilt.’ The idea is 
that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave: proof being 
put in that the slave is dead, the verdict must needs be that the 
claims of law are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable ; 
Sin loses its suit. 

8. oufjcopev, The different senses of ‘life’ and ‘death’ always 
lie near together with St. Paul, and his thought glides backwards 
and forwards from one to another almost imperceptibly ; now he 
lays a little more stress on the physical sense, now on the ethical ; 
at One moment on the present state and at another on the future. 
Here and in ver. 9 the future eternal life is most prominent ; but 
ver. 10 is transitional, and in ver. 11 we are back again at the 
stand-point of the present. 

9. If the Resurrection opened up eternity to Christ it will do 
so also to the Christian. 

kupteder. Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. Death 
loses its domintum over Christ altogether. That which gave Death 
its hold upon Him was sin, the human sin with which He was 
brought in contact by His Incarnation. The connexion was 
severed oncg for all by Death, which set Him free for ever. 

10. 6 yap dmé@ave. The whole clause forms a kind of cognate 
accus. after the second dmééavey (Win. § xxiv. 4, p. 209 E. T.); 
Euthym.-Zig. paraphrases tov 6dvarov ov dréOave Sia thy duapriay 
amcOave tiv jperépav, where however rg dyaprig is not rightly repre- 
sented by dca rv duapriay. 


160 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VI. 10, 1L 


TH Gpapria dréBavev. In what sense did Christ die to sin? 
The phrase seems to point back to ver. 7 above: Sin ceased to 
have any claim upon Him. But how could Sin have a claim upon 
Him ‘ who had no acquaintance with sin’ (2 Cor. v. 21)? The 
same verse which tells us this supplies the answer: rév pi yodvra 
dpapriav imép nuav dpaptiay éroingey, ‘the Sinless One for our sake 
was treated as if He were sinful.’ The sin which hung about\Him 
and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 1 Pet. 
ii. 22, 24). It was in His Death that this pressure of human sin 
culminated; but it was also in His Death that it came to an end, 
decisively and for ever. 

épdmat. The decisiveness of the Death of Christ is specially 
insisted upon in Ep. to Hebrews. This is the great point of con- 
trast with the Levitical sacrifices: they did and it did not need to 
be repeated (cf. Heb. vii. 27; ix. 12, 26, 28; x. 10; also # Pet. 
ili. 18). 

{7 76 Oc6. Christ died for (in relation to) Sin, and lives hence- 
forth for God. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made 
Him also liable to death, is broken. No other power xupsever avrov 
but God. 

This phrase { r@ ©c@ naturally suggests ‘the moral’ application 
to the believer. 

11. AoyiLeoGe gautods. The man and his ‘self’ are distinguished. 
The ‘self’ is not the ‘ whole self,’ but only that part of the man 
which lay under the dominion of sin. [It will help us to bear this 
in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter.] This part of 
the man is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its 
prey; but his true self is alive, and alive for God, through its 
union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God. . 

hoyiLeoGe: not indic. (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the 
way, after St. Paul’s manner, for the direct exhortation of the next 
paragraph. 

év Xptot@ “Inco. This phrase is the summary expression of 
the doctrine which underlies the whole of this section and forms, as 
we have seen, one of the main pillars of St. Paul’s theology. The 
chief points seem to be these. (1) The relation is conceived as 
a local relation. The Christian has his being ‘in’ Christ, as 
living creatures ‘in’ the air, as fish ‘in’ the water, as plants ‘in’ 
the earth (Deissmann, p. 84; see below). (2) The order of the 
words is invariably év Xpior@ "Inaod, not ev Incov Xpior@ (Deissmann, 
p. 88; cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup.). We find 
however «v ro "Incod in Eph. iv. 21, but not in the same strict 
application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words 
_ in this order ev Xp.’I. always relates to the glorified Christ regarded 
as mvedpa, not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding 
expression Xpiords é tux is best explained by the same analogy of 


VI. 11-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 161 


‘the air.” Man lives and breathes ‘in the air,’ and the air is also 
‘in the man’ (Deissmann, p. gz). 


Deissmann’s monograph is entitled Die meutestamentliche Forme! in 
Christo Jesu, Marburg, 1892. It is a careful and methodical investigation of 
the subject, somewhat too rigorous in pressing all examples of the use into 
the same monld, and rather inclined to realistic modes of conception. A very 
interesting question arises as to the origin of the phrase. Herr Deissmann 
regards it as a creation—and naturally as one of the most original creations— 
of St. Paul.” And it is true that it is not found in the Synoptic Gospels. 
Approximations however are found more or less sporadically, in 1 St. Peter 
(iii. 16; v. 10, 14; always in the correct text év Xpio7@), in the Acts (iv. 2 
& 1@ “Incov: 9, 10 év TH dvduatt “Incov Xporov: 12; xiii. 39 év ToUTw TGs 
$ morevoy Siea:od7a:), and in full volume in the Fourth Gospel (é& éyot, 
pevew ev éyuoi Jo. vi. 56; xiv. 20, 30; xv. 2-7; xvi. 33; xvii. 21), in the 
First Epistle of St. John (& aid, ev 7 vid efvar, pévew ii. 5, 6, 8, 24, 27, 
28; iii. 6, 24; Vv. 11, 20; éxew roy vidv v.12), and also in the Apocalypse 
(& "Incod i. 9; év Kupiw xiv. 13). Besides the N. T. there are the Apostolic 
Fathers, whose usage should be investigated with reference to the extent to 
which it is directly traceable to St. Panl*. The phrase & Xpict@ “Iqcod 
occurs in 1 Clem. xxxii. 4; xxxviii. 1; Ign. Zph.i. 1; Trail. ix. a; Rom. 
i. 1; ii. 2. The commoner phrases are & Xpior@ in Clem. Rom. and & 
"Inood Xpicte which is frequent in Ignat. The distinction between év Iqcod 
Xpiot@ and év Xpist@ "Iqcod is by this time obliterated. In view of these 
phenomena and the usage of N.T. it is natural to ask whether all can be 
accounted for on the assumption that the phrase originates entirely with 
St. Paul. In spite of the silence of Evv. Synopt. it seems more probable 
that the suggestion came in some way ultimately from our Lord Himself. 
This would not be the only instance of an idea which caught the attention of 
but few of the first disciples but was destined afterwards to wider acceptance 


and expansion. 
12. Bacthevérw: cf. v. 21 of Sin; v. 14, 17 of Death. 


With this verse comp. Philo, De Gigant. 7 (Mang. i. 266) Airiow d& Tis 
GvemioTnpoouvns péeyoTov 7 Gap~ Kai 7) Mpds GapKa oiKeiwats, 


13. Observe the change of tense: maptotdvere, ‘go on yielding,’ 
by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses; 
mapactycarte, ‘dedicate by one decisive act, one resolute effort.’ 

émAa: ‘weapons’ (cf. esp. Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. vi 7; x. 4). 
Gdixias and Sixaootvns are gen. gualifatis. For a like military 
metaphor more fully worked out comp. Eph. vi. 11-17. 

14. Gpaptia ydép. You are not, as you used to be, constantly 
harassed by the assaults of sin, aggravated to your consciences by 
the prohibitions of Law. The fuller explanation of this aggravating 
effect of Law is coming in what follows, esp. in ch. vii; and it is 
just like St. Paul to ‘set up a finger-post,’ pointing to the course his 

argument is to take, in the last clause of a paragraph. It is like 


* It is rather strange that this question does not appear to be touched either 
by Bp. Lightfoot or by Gebhardt and Hamack. There is more to the point in 
the excellent monograph on Ignatius by Von der Goltz in Zexte s UOniers. 
xii. 3, but the particular group of phrases is not directly treated. 


162 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [vI. 1-14 


him too to go off at the word véyov into a digression, returning to 
the subject with which the chapter opened, and looking at it from 
another side. 


The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ. 


How did St. Paul arrive at this doctrine of the Mystical Union? 
Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit. But that guiding, as 
it usually does, operated through natural and human channels. 
The channel in this instance would seem to be psychological. The 
basis of the doctrine is the Apostle’s own experience. His conver- 
sion was an intellectual change, but it was also something much 
more. It was an intense personal apprehension of Christ, as 
Master, Redeemer and Lord. But that apprehension was so 
persistent and so absorbing; it was such a dominant element in 
the life of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less 
than an actual zdentification of will. In the case of ordinary friend- 
ship and affection it is no very exceptional thing for unity of purpose 
and aim so to spread itself over the character, and so to permeate 
thought and feeling, that those who are joined together by this 
invisible and spiritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they 
were a single person and not two. But we can understand that in 
St. Paul’s case with an object for his affections so exalted as Christ, 
and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the upward 
motions of his own spirit, the process of identification had a more 
than common strength and completeness. It was accomplished in 
that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed 
such remarkable gifts—gifts which caused him to be singled out as 
the recipient of special Divine communications. Hence it was that 
there grew up within him a state of feeling which he struggles to 
express and succeeds in expressing through language which is 
practically the language of unzon. Nothing short of this seemed to 
do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the 
Apostle attained to. He spoke of himself as ove with Christ. And 
then his thoughts were so concentrated upon the culminating acts 
in the Life of Christ—the acts which were in a special sense asso- 
ciated with man’s redemption—His Death, Burial and Resurrection 
—that when he came to analyze his own feelings, and to dissect 
this idea of ozeness, it was natural to him to see in it certain stages, 
corresponding to those great acts of Christ, to see in it something 
corresponding to death, something corresponding to burial (which 
was only the emphasizing of death), and something corresponding 
to resurrection. 

Here there came in to help the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. An 
imagination as lively as St. Paul’s soon found in it analogies to the 
same process. That plunge beneath the running waters was like 


VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 163 


a death; the moment’s pause while they swept on overhead was 
like a burial; the standing erect once more in air and sunlight 
was a species of resurrection. Nor did the likeness reside only in 
the outward rite, it extended to its inner significance. To what was 
it that the Christian died? He died to his o/d self, to all that he 
had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian. 
To what did he rise again? Clearly to that mew Jzfe to which the 
Christian was bound over. And in this spiritual death and resurrec- 
tion the great moving factor was that one fundamental principle of 
union with Christ, identification of will with His. It was this which 
enabled the Christian to make his parting with the past and embracing 
of new obligations real. 

There is then, it will be seen, a meeting and coalescence of 
a number of diverse trains of thought in this most pregnant 
doctrine. On the side of Christ there is first the loyal acceptance 
of Him as Messiah and Lord, that acceptance giving rise to an 
impulse of strong adhesion, and the adhesion growing into an 
identification of will and purpose which is not wrongly described 
as union. Further, there is the distributing of this sense of union 
over the cardinal acts of Christ’s Death, Burial and Resurrection. 
Then on the side of the man there is his formal ratification of the 
process by the undergoing of Baptism, the symbolism of which all 
converges to the same end; and there is his practical assumption 
of the duties and obligations to which baptism and the embracing 
of Christianity commit him—the breaking with his tainted past, the 
entering upon a new and regenerate career for the future. 

The vocabulary and working out of the thought in St. Paul are 
his own, but the fundamental conception has close parallels in the 
writings of St. John and St. Peter, the New Birth through water 
and Spirit (John iii. 5), the being begotten again of incorruptible 
seed (1 Pet. i. 23), the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah 
(1 Pet. iii. 20, 21) in St. Peter; and there is a certain partial 
coincidence even in the drexincev of St. James (Jas. i. 18). 


It is the great merit of Matthew Armnold’s St. Paul and Protestantism, 
whatever its defects and whatever its one-sidedness, that it did seize with 
remarkable force and freshness on this part of St. Paul’s teaching. And the 
merit is all the greater when we consider how really high and difficult that 
teaching is, and how apt it is to shoot over the head of reader or hearer. 
Matthew Amold saw, and expressed with all his own lucidity, the foundation 
of simple psychological fact on which the Apostle’s mystical language is 
based. He gives to it the name of ‘ faith,’ and it is indeed the only kind of 
faith which he recognizes. Nor is he wrong in giving the process this name, 
though, as it happens, St. Paul has not as yet spoken of ‘ faith’ in this con- 
nexion, and does not so speak of it until he comes to Eph iii. 17. It was 
really faith, the living apprehension of Christ, which lies at the bottom of al! 
the language of identification and union. 

“If ever there was a case in which the wonder-working power of attach- 
ment, in a man for whom the moral sympathies and the desire for righteous 


164 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 1-14. 


ness were all-powerful, might employ itself and work its wonders, it was 
here. Paul felt this power penetrate him; and he felt, also, how by 
derfectly identifying himself through it with Christ, and in no other way, 
could he ever get the confidence and force to do as Christ did. He thus 
found a point in which the mighty world outside man, and the weak world 
inside him, seened to combine for his salvation. The struggling stream of 
duty, which had not volume enough to bear him to his goal, was suddenly 
reinforced by the immense tidal wave of sympathy and emotion. To this 
new and potent influence Paul gave the name of faith’ (St. Paul and 
Protestantism, p. 69 f.). 

‘It is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of faith 
without remarking on the incomparable power of edification which it con- 
tains. It is indeed a crowning evidence of that piercing practical religious 
sense which we have attributed to Paul.... The elemental power of sym- 
pathy and emotion in us, a power which extends beyond the limits of our 
own will and conscious activity, which we cannot measure and control, and 
which in each of us differs immensely in force, volume, and mode of mani- 
festation, he calls into full play, and sets it to work with all its strength and 
in all its variety. But one unalterable object is assigned by him to this 
power: to die with Christ to the law of the flesh, to live with Christ to the 
law of the mind. This is the doctrine of the zecrosts (2 Cor. iv. 10), Paul’s 
central doctrine, and the doctrine which makes his profoundness and origin- 
ality.... Those multitudinous motions of appetite and self-will which 
reason and conscience disapproved, reason and conscience could yet not 
govern, and had to yield to them. This, as we have seen, is what drove 
Paul almost to despair. Well, then, how did Paul’s faith, working through 
love, help him here? It enabled him to reinforce duty by affection. In the 
central need of his nature, the desire to govern these motions of unrighteous- 
ness, it enabled him to say: Dze to them! Christ did. If any man bein 
Christ, said Paul,—that is, if any man identifies himself with Christ by 
attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives with his life,—he is 
a new creature; he can do, and does, what Christ did. First, he suffers 
with him. Christ, throughout His life and in His death, presented His body 
a living sacrifice to God; every self-willed impulse, blindly trying to assert 
itself without respect of the universal order, he died to. You, says Paul to 
his disciple, are to do the same....If you cannot, your attachment, your 
faith, must be one that goes but a very little way. In an ordinary human 
attachment, out of love to a woman, out of love to a friend, out of love to 
a child, you can suppress quite easily, because by sympathy you become one 
with them and their feelings, this or that impulse of selfishness which 
happens to conflict with them, and which hitherto you have obeyed. AM 
impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ's feelings, He showed it by dying 
to them all; if you are one with Him by faith and sympathy, you can die to 
them also. Then, secondly, if you thus die with Him, you become trans- © 
formed by the renewing of your mind, and rise with Him. ... You rise with 
Him to that harmonious conformity with the real and eternal order, that 
sense of pleasing God who trieth the hearts, which is life and peace, and 
which grows more and more till it becomes glory’ (zd. pp. 75-78). 

Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found 
in a lay sermon, Zhe Witness of God, by the philosopher, T, H. Green 
(London, 1883; also in Works). Mr. Green was as far removed as Matthew 
Arnold from conventional theology, and there are traces of Hegelianism in 
what follows for which allowance should be made, but his mind had a natural 
affinity for this side of St. Paul’s teaching, and he has expressed it with great 
force and moral intensity. To this the brief extracts given will do but 
imperfect justice, and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety. 

“The death and rising again of the Christ, as [St. Paul] conceived them, 


VI. 1-14.] UNION WITH CHRIST 165 


were not separate and independent events. They were two sides of the same 
act—an act which relatively to sin, to the flesh, to the old man, to all which 
separates from God, is death; but which, just for that reason, is the birth of 
a new life relatively to God, .. . God was in [Christ], so that what He did, 
God did. A death unto life, a life out of death, must then be in some way 
the essence of the divine nature—must be an act which, though exhibited 
once for all in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, was yet eternal— 
the act of God Himself. For that very reason, however, it was one perpetu- 
ally re-enacted, and to be re-enacted, by man. If Christ died for all, all died 
in Him: all were buried in His grave to be all made alive in His resur- 
rection .. . In other words, He constitutes in us a new intellectual conscious- 
ness, which transforms the will and is the source of a new moral life.’ 
There is special value in the way in which the difference is brought out 
between the state of things to which the individual can attain by his own 
effort and one in which the change is wrought from without. The first 
‘would be a self-renunciation which would be really the acme of self-seeking. 
On the other hand, presented as the continuous act of God Himself, as the 
eternal self-surrender of the Divine Son to the Father, it is for us and may 
be in us, but is not of us. Nay, it is just because not of us, that it may be 
in us. Because it is the mind of Christ, and Christ is God’s, in the contem- 
plation of it we are taken out of ourselves, we slip the natural man and 
appropriate that mind which we behold. Constrained by God’s manifested 
love, we cease to be our own that Christ may become ours’ (7he Wetness of 
God, pp. 7-10). 

We may quote lastly an estimate of the Pauline conception in the history 
of Religion. ‘It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of God, 
this power has been exhibited; not indeed either adequately or exclusively, 
but most fully. In the religions of the East, the idea of a death to the 
fleshly self as the end of the merely human, and the beginning of a divine 
life, has not been wanting; nor, as a mere idea, has it been very different from 
that which is the ground of Christianity. But there it has never been 
realized in action, either intellectually or morally. The idea of the with- 
drawal from sense has remained abstract. It has not issued in such a struggle 
with the superficial view of things, as has gradually constituted the science 
of Christendom. In like manner that of self-renunciation has never emerged 
from the esoteric state. It has had no outlet into the life of charity, but 
a back-way always open into the life of sensual licence, and has been finally 
mechanized in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir’ (zdzd. p. 21). 

Qne of the services which Mr. Green’s lay sermon may do us is in helping 
us to understand—not the whole but part of the remarkable conception of 
‘The Way’ in Dr. Hort’s posthumous 7he Way, the Truth; and the Life 
(Cambridge and London, 1893). When it is contended, ‘first that the whole 
seeming maze of history in nature and man, the tumultuous movement of the 
world in progress, has running through it one supreme dominating Way; 
and second, that He who on earth was called Jesus the Nazarene zs that 
Way’ (The Way, &c. p. 20f.), we can hardly be wrong, though the point 
might have been brought out more clearly, in seeking a scriptural illustration 
in St. Paul’s teaching as to the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. 
These to him are not merely isolated historical events which took place once 
for all in the past. They did so take place, and their historical reality, as 
well as their direct significance in the Redemption wrought out by Christ, 
must be insisted upon. But they are more than this: they constitute a law, 
@ predisposed pattern or plan, which other human lives have to follow. 
‘ Death unto life,’ ‘life growing out of death,’ is the inner principle or secret, 
applied in an indefinite variety of ways, but running through the history of 
most, perhaps all, religious aspiration and attainment. Everywhere there 
must be the death of an old “elf and the birth of a new. It must be 


166 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. 16-23, 


admitted that the group of conceptions united by St. Paul, and, as it would 
seem, yet more widely extended by St. John, is difficult to grasp intellectually, 
and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life in 
which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. But the 
conception belongs to the length and depth and height of the Gospel: here, 
as we see it in St. Paul, it bears all the impress of his intense and prophet- 
like penetration : and there can be little doubt that it is capable of exercising 
a stronger and more dominating influence on the Christian consciousness 
than it has done. This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at 
rather considerable length, and for invoking the assistance of those who, just 
by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity, have brought 
to bear a freshness of insight in certain directions which has led them, if not 
exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realization of truths which to 
indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity. 


THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE, 
ANALOGY OF SLAVERY. 


VI. 15-23. Take an illustration from common life—the 
condition of slavery. The Christian was a slave of sin; 
his business was uncleanness; his wages, death. But he 
has been emancipated from this service, only to enter upon 
another—that of Righteousness. 


18Am I told that we should take advantage of our liberty as 
subjects of Grace and not of Law, to sin? Impossible! ™ Are 
you not aware that to render service and obedience to any one is 
to be the slave of that person or power to which obedience is 
rendered? And so it is here. You are either slaves of Sin, and 
the end before you death; or you are true to your rightful Master, 
and the end before you righteousness. ™ But, thank God, the 
time is past when you were slaves of Sin; and at your baptism you 
gave cordial assent to that standard of life and conduct in which 
you were first instructed and to the guidance of which you were 
then handed over by your teachers. ** Thus you were emancipated 
from the service of Sin, and were transferred to the service of 
Righteousness. 

*T am using a figure of speech taken from every-day human 
relations. If ‘servitude’ seems a poor and harsh metaphor, it is 
one which the remains of the natural man that still cling about you 
will-at least permit you to understand. Yours must be an wn- 
divided service. Devote the members of your body as unreservedly 


VI. 15-23.] LAW AND GRACE 107 


to the service of righteousness for progressive consecration to God, 
as you once devoted them to Pagan uncleanness and daily increas- 
ing licence. *I exhort you to this. Why? Because while you 
were slaves to Sin, you were freemen in regard to Righteousness. 
%1 What good then did you get from conduct which you now blush 
to think of? Much indeed! For the goal to which it leads is 
death. * But now that, as Christians, you are emancipated from 
Sin and enslaved to God, you have something to show for your 
service—closer and fuller consecration, and your goal, eternal Life ! 
*8For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death; while you 
receive—no wages, but the bountiful gift of God, the eternal Life, 
which is ours through our union with Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 


15-23. The next two sections (vi. 15-23; vii. 1-6) might be 
described summarily as a description of the Christian’s release, what 
it is and what it is not. The receiving of Christian Baptism was 
a great dividing-line across a man’s career. In it he entered into 
a wholly new relation of self-identification with Christ which was 
fraught with momentous consequences looking both backwards and 
forwards. From his sin-stained past he was cut off as it were by 
death: towards the future he turned radiant with the quickening 
influence of a new life. St Paul now more fully expounds the 
nature of the change. He does so by the help of two illustrations, 
one from the state of slavery, the other from the state of wedlock. 
Each state implied certain ties, like those by which the convert to 
Christianity was bound before his conversion. But the cessation of 
these ties does not carry with it the cessation of all ties; it only 
means the substitution of new ties for the old. So is it with the 
slave, who is emancipated from one service only to enter upon 
another. So is it with the wife who, when released by the death of 
one husband, is free to marry again. In the remaining verses of 
this chapter St. Paul deals with the case of Slavery. Emancipation 
from Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness. 

15. The Apostle once more reverts to the point raised at the 
beginning of the chapter, but with the variation that the incentive 
to sin is no longer the seeming good which Sin works by calling 
down grace, but the freedom of the state of grace as opposed to the 
strictness of the Law. St. Paul’s reply in effect is that Christian 
freedom consists not in freedom to sin but in freedom from sin. 


Gpaprycwpev: from a late aor. judpryca, found in LXX (Veitch, Zreg. 
Verbs, p. 49). Chrys. codd. Theodrt. and others, with minuscules, read 
dyapricopey. 


16. A general proposition to which our Lord Himself had 


168 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VI. 16-19. 


appealed in ‘No man can serve two masters’ (Matt. vi. 24). There 
are still nearer parallels in John viii. 34; 2 Pet. ii. 19: passages 
however which do not so much prove direct dependence on St. Paul 
as that the thought was ‘in the air’ and might occur to more 
writers than one. 


To... . %: these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lively and emphatic 
way, implying that one limb or the other must be chosen (Baumlein, Par- 
tikellehre, p. 244; Kiihner, Grams. § 540. 5). 


17. cis dv . . . Si8ayxqs: stands for [imnxotcare] rime Bi8ayqs els 
bv mapedd6nre. We expect rather és tuiv mapedéén: it seems more 
natural to say that the teaching is handed over to the persons 
taught than that the persons taught are handed over to the teach- 
ing. The form of phrase which St. Paul uses however expresses 
well the experience of Christian converts. Before baptism they 
underwent a course of simple instruction, like that in the ‘ Two 
Ways’ or first part of the Didaché (see the reff. in Hatch, Azbbert 
Lectures, p. 314). With baptisin this course of instruction ceased, 
and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. 
This was to be henceforth their standard of living. 

tUtov S.Saxfs. For rimos see the note on ch. v.24. The third 
of the senses there given (‘ pattern,’ ‘ exemplar,’ ‘standard’) is by 
far the most usual with St. Paul, and there can be little doubt that 
that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. (ris 8é 6 
tunos tis Sidax7js; dpOds Cyv Kat pera modreias apiorns) Euthym.-Zig. 
(cis tumoy, you tov Kavdva kai Epov tis evoeSods modreias), and 
among moderns all the English commentators with Oltr. and Lips. 
To suppose, as some leading Continental scholars (De W. Mey.-W. 
Go.) have done, that some special ‘type of doctrine,’ whether 
Jewish-Christian or Pauline, is meant, is to look with the eyes of 
the nineteenth century and not with those of the first (cf. Hort, 
Rom. and Eph. p. 32 ‘Nothing like this notion of a plurality of 
Christian rio: 8:8ay7s occurs anywhere else in the N. T., and it is 
quite out of harmony with the context’). 

19. d&vOpdmvov A€yw. St. Paul uses this form of phrase (cf. 
Gal. iii. 15 xara dv@pwrov dAéyw) where he wishes to apologize for 
having recourse to some common (or as he would have called it 
carnal’) illustration to express spiritual truths. So Chrys. (first 
explanation) Goavei €dreyer, awd avOpwrivoy Aoyiopav, axe ray ev 
ournbeia yivopevar. 

Sid thy doOdveray tis capxds. Two explanations are possible : 
(1) ‘ because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of 
Christianity’ (Chrys. Theodrt. Weiss and others); (2) ‘because 
of the difficulties of apprehension, from defective spiritual experi- 
ence, which prevent the understanding of its deeper truths’ (most 
moderns) Clearly this is more in keeping with the context. In 


VI. 19-21] LAW AND GRACE 169 


any case the clause refers to what has gone before, not (as Orig. 
Chrys., &c.) to what follows. 


odpt = human nature in its weakness, primarily physical and moral, but 
secondarily intellectual. It is intellectual weakness in so far as this is deter- 
mined by moral, by the limitations of character: cf. ¢poveiv 7a 7Hs capkés, 

@pévnpa tis capkds Rom. viii. 5 f.; cogot xara odpxa 1 Cor. i. 26. The 

idea of this passage is similar to that of 1 Cor. iii. a yada tyds éwética, ob 

BpGpa° ovmw yap 75vvacbe. 

TH dxabapoia. dxaSapcia and dvopia fitly describe the characteristic 
features of Pagan life (cf. i. 24 ff.). As throughout the context these 
forms of sin are personified; they obtain a mastery over the man; 
and «is rjv dvouiay describes the effect of that mastery—‘to the 
practice of iniquity.’ With these verses (19-21) compare especially 
1 Pet, iv. 1-5. 

eis dy:acpov. Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make 
dy:acyés here practically = dy:ootvy, i.e. not so much the process of 
consecration as the result of the process. There is certainly this 
tendency in language; and in some of the places in which the word 
is used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state (e. g. x Thess. 
iv. 4, where it is joined with ryuq; 1 Tim. ii. 15, where it is joined 
with sioms and dydz). But in the present passage the word may 
well retain its proper meaning : the members are to be handed over 
to Righteousness to be (gradually) made fit for God’s service, not 
to become fit all at once. So Weiss Gif. Va. Mou. (‘course of 
purification’). For the radical meaning see the note on dys 
ch. i. 7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. 206: dy:acpds = ‘the 
process of fitting for acceptable worship,’ a sense which comes 
out clearly in Heb. xii. 14 dudxere . . . tov dyracpdv od yxapis ovdeis 
éeras tov Kipwov. The word occurs some ten times (two wv. ll.) 
in LXX and in Ps. Sol. xvii. 33, but is not classical. 

21. tiva obv... ématoxdvecde ; Where does the question end and 
the answer begin? (1) Most English commentators and critics 
(Treg. WH. RV. as well as Gif. Va.) carry on the question to 
énacxuvecbe, In that case éexeivev must be supplied before eq’ ols, 
and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of éxeivey in the 
sentence following (comp. amodavdvres €v @ xartetxspeba Vii. 6 below). 
There would then be a common enough ellipse before ré yap rédos, 
‘What fruit had ye...? [None:] for the end, &c. (2) On the 
other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though 
not Mey.) put the question at rére, and make éq@’ ofs emawyivecbe 
part of the answer. ‘What fruit had ye then? Things [pleasures, 
gtatifications of sense] of which you are now ashamed: for their 
end is death.’ So, too, Theod.-Mops. (in Cramer) expressly: kar’ 
€patnow avayvwotéoy To riva ov Kdpmoy elyeTe TérTE, ciTa KaTa 
Groxpow é€d ois viv ématcxvvecde. Both interpretations are 
possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural 


170 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ViI. 1-6 


(Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as é¢’ ofs emawy. 
with what precedes, it is a mistake to separate them except for 
strong reasons; nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for 
distinguishing between near consequences and remote. 


73 yép: 7d piv yap N°BD*E FG, There is the usual ambiguity of 
readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The probability is 
that the reading belongs to the Western element in B, and that yéy was 
introduced through erroneous antithesis to vuri 5é, 

23. doidvia. From a root mem- we get éYm, dor, cooked” meat, fish, &e. 
as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound éymrtov (wvéopat, ‘to buy’) = 
54 provision-money, ration-money, or the rations in kind given to troops; 
(2) in a more general sense, ‘wages.’ The word is said to have come in 
with Menander: it is proscribed by the Atticists, but found freely in Polybius, 
I Macc. &c. (Sturz, Dial. Maced. p. 187). 

Xdpiopa, Tertullian, with his usual picturesque boldness, translates this by 
donativum (De Res. Carn.c. 47 Stipendia enim delinquentiae mors, donativum 
autem det vita acterna). It is not probable that St. Paul had this particular 
antithesis in his mind, though no doubt he intends to contrast 6jdme and 


xa propa. 


THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACB. 
ANALOGY OF MARRIAGE. 


VII. 1-6. Take another illustration from the Law of 
Marriage. The Marriage Law only binds a woman while 
her husband lives. So with the Christian. He was wedded, 
as tt were, to his old sinful state; and all that time he was 
subject to the law applicable to that state. But this old life 
of his was killed through his identification with the death of 
Christ; so as to set him free to contract a new marriage— 
with Christ, no longer dead but risen: and the fruit of that 
marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit. 


1I say that you are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin. 
You will see how: unless you need to be reminded of a fact which 
your acquaintance with the nature of Law will readily suggest to 
you, that Law, for the man who comes under it, is only in force 
during his lifetime. *Thus for instance a woman in wedlock is 
forbidden by law to desert her living husband. But if her husband 
should die, she is absolved from the provisions of the statute ‘ Of 
the Husband.’ *Hence while her husband is alive, she will be 
styled ‘an adulteress’ if she marry another man: but if her 


VII. 1-6.] LAW AND GRACE 171 


husband die, she is free from that statute, so that no one can call 
her an adulteress, though she be married to another man. 

*We may apply this in an allegory, in which the wife is the 
Christian’s ‘self’ or ‘ego’; the first husband, his old unregenerate 
state, burdened with all the penalties attaching to it. 

You then, my brethren in Christ, had this old state killed in you 
—brought to an abrupt and violent end—by your identification 
with the crucified Christ, whose death you reproduce spiritually. 
And this death of your old self left you free to enter upon a new 
marriage with the same Christ, who triumphed over death— 
a triumph in which you too share—that in union with Him you, 
and indeed all of us Christians, may be fruitful in good works, to 
the glory and praise of God. °Our new marriage must be fruitful, 
as our old marriage was. When we had nothing better to guide 
us than this frail humanity of ours, so liable to temptation, at that 
time too a process of generation was going on. The impressions 
of sense, suggestive of sin, stimulated into perverse activity by their 
legal prohibition, kept plying this bodily organism of ours in such 
a way as to engender acts that only went to swell the garners of 
Death. * But now all that has been brought to an end. Law and 
the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at 
our baptism, a moral death, to that old state of sin we were absolved 
or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under 
the penalties to which sin laid us open. And through this discharge 
we are enabled to serve God in a new state, the ruling principle of 
which is Spirit, in place of that old state, presided over by Written 
Law. 

1-6. The text of this section—and indeed of the whole chapter 
—is still, ‘Ye are not under Law, but under Grace’; and the 
Apostle brings forward another illustration to show how the transi- 
tion from Law to Grace has ‘been effected, and what should be its 
consequences. 

In the working out of this illustration there is a certain amount 
of intricacy, due to an apparent shifting of the stand-point in the 
middle of the paragraph. The Apostle begins by showing how 
with the death of her husband the law which binds a married 
woman becomes a dead letter. He goes on to say in the 
application, not ‘The Law is dead to you,’ but ‘You are dead to 
the Law’—which looks like a change of position, though a 
legitimate one. 


172 FPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [vII.1,2 


Gif. however may be right in explaining the transition rather 
differently, viz. by means of the madavds avépwros of ch. vi. 6. The 
‘self’ of the man is double; there is an ‘old self’ and a ‘new self’; 
or rather the ‘self’ remains the same throughout, but it passes 
through different states, or phases. Bearing this in mind we shall 
find the metaphor work out consistently. 


The Wife = the true self, or ego, which is permanent through 
all change. 

The (first) Husband =the old state before conversion to 
Christianity. 

The ‘law of the husband’ = the law which condemned that old 
state. 

The new Marriage = the union upon which the convert enters 
with Christ. 


The crucial phrase is tyeis €GavaraOyre in ver. 4. According to 
the way in which we explain this will be our explanation of the 
whole passage. See the note ad /oc. 

There is yet another train of thought which comes in with 
vw. 4-6. The idea of marriage naturally suggests the offspring of 
marriage. In the case of the Christian the fruit of his union with 
Christ is a holy life. 

1. *H_ dyvoeite: of surely you know this—that the régime of Law 
has come to an end, and that Grace has superseded it.] Or do you 
tequire to be told that death closes all accounts, and therefore that 
the state of things to which Law belongs ceased through the death 
of the Christian with Christ—that mystical death spoken of in the 
last chapter?’ 

yvdoxoucr yap vépnov aha: ‘I speak’ (lit. ‘am talking’) ‘to men 
acquainted with Law.’ At once the absence of the article and the 
nature of the case go to show that what is meant here is not 
Roman Law (Weiss), of which there is no reason to suppose that 
St. Paul would possess any detailed knowledge, nor yet the Law of 
Moses more particularly considered (Lips.), but a general principle 
of all Law; an obvious axiom of political justice—that death clears 
all scores, and that a dead man can no longer be prosecuted or 
punished (cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 24). 

2. 4 yap UravSpos yur: [‘the truth of this may be proved by 
a case in point.] For a woman in the state of wedlock is bound 
by law to her living husband.’ tsav3pos: a classical word, found 
in LXX. 

katipyntat: ‘is completely (perf.) absolved or discharged’ (lit. 
‘nullified’ or ‘annulled,’ her status as a wife is abolished). The 
two correlative phrases are treated by St. Paul as practically 
convertible: ‘the woman is annulled from the law,’ and ‘the law 
is annulled to the woman.’ For x«arapyein see on iii. 3. 


VII. 2-4.] LAW AND GRACE 173 


amd toi véuou tod dvSpés: from that section of the statute-book 
which is headed ‘ The Husband,’ the section which lays down his 
rights and duties. Gif. compares ‘the law of the leper’ Lev. xiv. 2; 
‘the law of the Nazirite’ Num. vi. 13. 


3. xpnpattoa. The meanings of xoquati{er ramify in two directions. 
The fundamental idea is that of ‘ transacting business’ or ‘managing affairs.” 
Hence we get on the one hand, from the notion of doing business under 
a certain name, from Polybius onwards (1) ‘to bear a name or title’ (xpnya- 
ri¢er BactAeus Polyb. V. lvii, a); and so simply, as here, ‘to be called or 
styled’ (Acts xi. 26 éyévero... xpnuation mpairov év Avrioxeia Tovs wabnTas 

Xpisriayous) ; ; and on the other hand (2) from the notion of ‘ having dealings 
with,’ ‘ giving audience to’ a person, in a special sense, of the ‘ answers, 
communications, revelations,’ given by an oracle or by God. So six times 
in LXX of Jerem., Joseph. Azftzg., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get 
pass. ‘to be warned or admonished’ by God (Matt. ii. 12, 22; Acts x. 22; 
Heb. viii, 5; xi. 7). Hence also subst. xpnyariopds, ‘a Divine or oracular 
Tesponse,’ a Mace. ii. 4; Rom. xi. 4. Burton (JZ. and T. § 69) calls the 
fut. here a ‘ gnomic future’ as stating ‘what will customarily happen when 
occasion offers.’ 

ToD p17] elvat = Gore elvar: the stress is thrown back upon éAevdépa, ‘80 
as not to be,’ ‘causing her not to be,’—not ‘so that she is.’ Accordin 
Burton rod yy here denotes ‘conceived result’; but see the note on ware 
dovdeveww i in ver. 6 below. 

ee Gove with indic. introduces a consequence which follows as a matter 
of fact. 


rat Sets €QavardOyte. We have said that the exact interpreta- 
tion of the whole passage turns upon this phrase. It is commonly 
explained as another way of saying ‘You had the Law killed to — 
you.’ So Chrys. dxddovdoy fy eimeiv, rod vépou TeAeurnoartos ov Kpiveobe 
potxelas, avdpt yevdpevor érépm. “ANX’ ovk elmer ovTas, G\Na TOs; "EOava- 
1Onte TO vope (cf. Euthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel 
KATNpyyTat aro TOU vopov Tov avdpds in ver. 2, and xatnpynOnpev amd Tov 
vonov in ver.6. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the 
same persons at one moment as ‘killed’ and the next as ‘married 
again. ‘There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of 
Gif., who makes tueis = not the whole self but the old self, z.¢. the 
old state of the self which was really ‘crucified with Christ’ 
(ch. vi. 6), and the death of which really leaves the man (= the wife 
in the allegory) free to contract a new union. This moral death 
of the Christian to his past also does away with the Law. The 
Law had its hold upon him only through sin; but in discarding 
his sins he discards also the pains and penalties which attached to 
them. Nothing can touch him further. His old heathen or Jewish 
antecedents have passed away ; he is under obtigation only to Christ. 


wai duets, The force of xal here is, ‘You, my readers, as well as the wife 
in the allegory.’ 


81a rod cdpatos tou Xpictod. The way in which the death of 
the ‘old man’ is brought about is through the identification of the 


1974 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (VII. 4, 6. 


Christian with the Death of Christ. The Christian takes his place, 
as it were, with Christ upon the Cross, and there has his old self 
crucified. The ‘body’ of Christ here meant is the ‘crucified 
body’: the Christian shares in that crucifixion, and so gets rid 
of his sinful past. We are thus taken back to the symbolism of the 
last chapter (vi. 6), to which St. Paul also throws in an allusion 
in 7 ék vexpay éyepSévr. The two lines of symbolism really run 
parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them. 

6 madatés GvOpwros = The Husband: 

Crucifixion of the wad. avé. = Death of the Husband: 

Resurrection = Re-Marriage: 

av, dovdevew 7G GcG = xaprohope ta Oca. 


eis 73 yevéoOar tas érépw. Lips. takes this not of ‘being married to 
another husband,’ but of ‘joining another master, on the ground that there 
is no marriage to the Zaw. This however (1) is unnecessary, because 
marriage to the ‘old man’ carries with it subjection to the Law, so that the 
dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a step which is 
close and inevitable; (2) it is wrong, because of xapropopjoa, which it is 
clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips. does, to anything but 
the offspring of marriage. 


kaptopopycwpev To Gea. The natural sequel to the metaphor of 
‘Marriage.’ The ‘fruit’ which the Christian, wedded to Christ, is 
to bear is of course that of a reformed life. 

5. Ste yap jpev év 7H capxt. This verse develops the idea con- 
tained in xapmohopnotwpev: the new marriage ought to be fruitful, 
because the old one was. iva: év r7 capxi is the opposite of eivas 
év 6 mvevuart> the one is a life which has no higher object than 
the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated by the 
Spirit. Although odpé is human nature especially on the side of 
its frailty, it does not follow that there is any dualism in St. Paul’s 
conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. 
Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. It implies that it 
is possible to be ‘in the body’ without being ‘in the flesh.’ The 
body, as such, is plastic to influences of either kind: it may be 
worked upon by Sin through the senses, or it may be worked upon 
by the Spirit. In either case the motive-force comes from without. 
The body itself is neutral. See esp. the excellent discussion in 
Gifford, pp. 48-52. 

74 TaOypata Tav Gpaptiav: mdénua has the same sort of ambiguity 
as our word ‘passion.’ It means (4) an ‘impression,’ esp. a ‘ pain- 
ful impression’ or suffering; (2) the reaction which follows upon 
some strong impression of sense (cf. Gal. v. 24). The gen. rap 
ayaptiav = ‘connected with sins,’ ‘leading to sins.’ 

7a Sa tod vopov. Here St. Paul, as his manner is, ‘throws 
up a finger-post’ which points to the coming section of his argu- 
ment. The phrase did rod véyuov is explained at length in the next 


VII. 5, 6.] LAW AND GRACE 175 


paragraph: it refers to the effect of Law in calling forth and 
aggravating sin. 

évnpyetto. The pricks and stings of passion were active in our 
members (cf. s Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 7; 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12; 
Gal. v. 6, &c.). 

70 Oavdtw: dat. commod?, contrasted with raprog. 76 Oco above. 

6. vuri Sé natnpynOnpev dad too vopov. ‘But as it is we’ (in our 
peccant part, the old man) ‘were discharged or annulled from the 
Law’ (z.e. we had an end put to our relations with the Law; by 
the death of our old man there was nothing left on which the Law 
could wreak its vengeance; we were ‘struck with atrophy’ in 
respect to it: see on ver. 2). mas jpeis xarnpynOnuev; Tov Karexopevov 
mapa tis dyaptias avOpmrov madaod dmobavdvros Kat tapévtos Chrys. 
We observe how Chrys. here practically comes round to the same 
side as Gif. 


The renderings of xatnpy7Onuev are rather interesting, and show the diffi- 
culty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages: evacuats sumus 
Tert.; solutt sumus Codd. Clarom. Sangerm. Vulg. (=‘we were un- 
bounden’ Wic.; ‘we are loosed’ Rhem.); ‘we are delivered’ Tyn. Cran. 
Genev. AV.; ‘we are discharged’ RV.; nous avons é&é dégagés Oltr. (Le 
Nouveau Test., Geneva, 1874); nun aber sind wir fiir das Gesets nicht 
mehr da Weizsacker (Das Neue Test., Freiburg i. B. 1882, ed. 2). 

amo8avevres. AV. apparently read do@avdvros, for which there is no 
MS. authority, but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following 
Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom’s (see Tisch. ad Joc.). The 
Western text (DEF G, codd. ap. Orig.-lat. and most Latins) boldly corrects 
to tod Gavarov, which would go with ov véyov, and which gives an easier 
construction, though not a better sense. After dwofayvéyres we must supply 
tseivy, just as in vi. 21 we had to supply éxcivor, 


év @ katerxdue0a, The antecedent of év¢ is taken by nearly all 
commentators as equivalent to r@ véum (whether ékeivw or rove is 
regarded as masc. or better neutr.). Gif. argues against referring 
it to the ‘old state,’ ‘the old man,’ that this is not sufficiently 
suggested by the context. But wherever ‘ death’ is spoken of it is 
primarily this ‘old state,’ or ‘old man’ which dies, so that the use 
of the term drofavéyres alone seems enough to suggest it. It was 
this old sinful state which brought man under the grip of the Law; 
when the sinful life ceased the Law lost its hold. 

Gote Soudevew: not ‘so that we serve’ (RV. and most com- 
mentators), but ‘so as fo serve,’ i.e. ‘enabling us to serve.’ The 
stress is thrown back upon earnpy7Onyev,—we were so completely 
discharged as to set us free to serve. 


The true distinction between &ore with infin. and Sore with indic., which is 
not always observed in RV., is well stated by Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, ed. 
1889, § 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto, De Fads. Leg. App. in the note), 
and for N.T. by the late Canon T. S. Evans in the Zxos. for 1882, i. 3 ff.: 
Gore with indic. states the definite result which as a matter of fact does 
follow ; ove with infin, states the contemplated result which in the natural 


176 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII.7-25. 


course ought to follow. Goze with indic. lays stress on the effect; Gore with ~ 
infin. on the cause. Thus in 1 Cor. i. 7 Gore iorepeicOar = ‘causing of 


inspiring you to feel behindhand’ (see Sp. Comm. ad oc.) ; in Matt. xiii. 32 
yivera Sévipov, Gore éd\Ociv ra wereWwa Kal KaTacKnvowv = ‘ becomes a tree 
big enough for the birds to come,’ &c. It will be seen that the distinction 
corresponds to the difference in the general character of the twe moods, 


év xawdrnt mvedpatos ... makatérnT ypdppatos. In each case 
the gen. is what is called of ‘apposition’: it denotes that in which 
the newness, or oldness, consists. The essential feature of the new 
state is that it is one of ‘Spirit’; of the old state, that it is regulated 
by ‘written Law.’ The period of the Paraclete has succeeded to 
the period which took its character from the Sinaitic legislation. 
The Christian life turns on an inspiration from above, not on an 
elaborate code of commands and prohibitions. A fuller explanation 
of the xawérns mvevparos is given in ch. viii. 


It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful te check the 
study of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between 
ypappa and veda is not exactly identical with that which we are in the 
habit of drawing between ‘the letter’ and ‘the spirit’ as the ‘literal’ and 
‘spiritual sense’ of a writing. In this antithesis ypayya is with St. Paul 
always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while mvedya is the operation 
of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf. Rom. ii. a9; 2 Cor. iii. 6). 


LAW AND SIN. 


VII. 7-25. Jf release from Sin means release from Law, 
must we then identify Law with Sin? No. Law reveals 
the sinfulness of Sin, and by this very revelation stirs up the 
dormant Sin to action. But this is not because the Law 
itself ts evil—on the contrary it is good—but that Sin may 
be exposed and its guilt aggravated (vv. 7-13). 

This is what takes place. I havea double self. But my 
better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrong 
(vv. 14-17). Jt ts equally impotent to make me do right 
(vv. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on, 
Srom which, unaided, I can hope for no deliverance. But, 
God be thanked, through Christ deliverance comes! (vv. 
21-25). 

7I spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law, 
and of the death to Sin as carrying with it a release from the Law. 
Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin? An 


VII. 7-25.] LAW AND SIN 177 


intolerable thought! On the contrary it was the Law and nothing 
else through which I learnt the true nature of Sin. For instance, 
I knew the sinfulness of covetous or illicit desire only by the Law 
saying ‘Thou shalt not covet.’ *But the lurking Sin within me 
started into activity, and by the help of that express command, 
provoking to that which it prohibited, led me into all kinds of 
conscious and sinful covetousness. For withcut Law to bring it 
out Sin lies dead—inert and passive. * And while sin was dead, 
I—my inner self—was alive, in happy unconsciousness, following 
my bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law. But then 
came this Tenth Commandment ; and with its coming Sin awoke 
to life, while I—sad and tragic contrast—died the living death of 
sin, precursor of eternal death. ™And the commandment which 
was given to point men the way to life, this very commandment 
was found in my case to lead to death. ™ For Sin took advantage 
of it, and by the help of the commandment—at once confronting 
me with the knowledge of right and provoking me to do that 
which was wrong—it betrayed me, so that I fell; and the com- 
mandment was the weapon with which it slew me. ™ The result is 
that the Law, as a whole, is holy, inasmuch as it proceeds from God: 
and each single commandment has the like character of holiness, 
justice, and beneficence. ™*Am I then to say that a thing so 
excellent in itself to me proved fatal? Not fora moment. It was 
rather the demon Sin which wrought the mischief. And the reason 
why it was permitted to do so was that it might be shown in 
its true colours, convicted of being the pernicious thing that it is, 
by the fact that it made use of a good instrument, Law, to 
work out upon me the doom of death. For this reason Sin was 
permitted to have its way, in order that through its perverted 
use of the Divine commandment it might be seen in all its utter 
hideousness. 

%The blame cannot attach to the Law. For we all know that 
the Law has its origin from the Spirit of God and derives its 
character from that Spirit, while I, poor mortal, am made of frail 
human flesh and blood, sold like any slave in the market into the 
servitude of Sin. * It is not the Law, and not my own deliberate 
self, which is the cause of the evil; because my actions are exe- 
cuted blindly with no proper concurrence of the will. I purpose one 

a 


178 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII. 7-26. 


way, I act another. I hate a thing, but do it. ™ And by this very 
fact that I hate the thing that I do, my conscience bears testimony 
to the Law, and recognizes its excellence. ™ So that the state of the 
case is this. It is not I, my true self, who put into act what is 
repugnant to me, but Sin which has possession of me. ™ For lam 
aware that in me as I appear to the outer world—in this ‘ body 
that does me grievoes wrong,’ there dwells (in any permanent and 
predominating shape) nothing that is good. The will indeed to do 
good is mine, and I can command it; but the performance I cannot 
command. ™ For the actual thing that I do is not the good that 
I wish to do; but my moral agency appears in the evil that I wish 
to avoid. * But if I thus do what I do not wish to do, then the 
active force in me, the agent that carries out the act, is not my true 
self (which is rather seen in the wish to do right), but the tyrant 
Sin which holds possession of me. ™I find therefore this law— 
if so it may be called—this stern necessity laid upon me from 
without, that much as I wish to do what is good, the evil lies at my 
door. For I am a divided being. In my innermost self, the 
thinking and reasoning part of me, I respond joyfully to the Law 
of God. * But then I see a different Law dominating this bodily 
organism of mine, and making me do its behests. This other Law 
takes the field in arms against the Law of Reason and Conscience, 
and drags me away captive in the fetters of Sin, the Power which 
has such a fatal grip upon my body. ™ Unhappy man that I am— 
torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue! This 
body from which proceed so many sinful impulses; this body which 
makes itself the instrument of so many acts of sin; this body 
which is thus dragging me down to death.—How shall I ever get 
free from it? What Deliverer will come and rescue me from its 
oppression ? 

%5 A Deliverer has come. And J can only thank God, approach- 
ing His Presence in humble gratitude, through Him to whom the 
deliverance is due—Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 

Without His intervention—so long as I am left to my own 
unaided self—the state that I have been describing may be briefly 
summarized. In this twofold capacity of mine I serve two masters: 
with my conscience I serve the Law of God; with my bodily 
organism the Law of Sin 


VII. 7, 8.] LAW AND SIN 179 


7. So far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion 
that it becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation 
between them. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider 
the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which 
they give rise in the soul. 


It is evident that Marcion had this section, as Tertullian turns against him 
St. Paul’s refusal to listen to any attack upon the Law, which Marcion 
ascribed to the Demiurge: Abominatur apostolus criminationem legis... 
Quid deo imputas legis quod legi eius apostolus imputare non audet? Atquin 
et accumulat: Lex sancta, et praeceptum eius iustum et bonum. S¢ faliter 
veneratur legem creatoris, guomodo ipsum destruat nescio. 


6 vépos Guaptia. It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makes 
use of the Law to effect the destruction of the sinner. Does it 
follow that Sin is to be zdentified with the Law? Do the two so 
overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description 
of Sin? St. Paul, like every pious Jew, repels this conclusion with 
horror. 

é\Ad contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. 
On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was. 

ook éyvav. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken 
hypothetically (for odk av éyvwv, av omitted to give a greater sense 
of actuality, Kiihner, Gr. Gramm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply 
temporal. Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense 
both here and with ove jéev below. Gif. Va. make both ox 
éyvory and ove 7Sew plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take 
ovx €yvev temporally, ove 7dev hypothetically. As the context is 
a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in 
place. 

ve yop émOuplav. re is best explained as = ‘for also,’ ‘ for indeed’ 

(ce wit $ liii. Aas E. pt ein. Va.). The general proposition is 
proved by a concrete example. 

€yvov ... qdew retain their proper meanings: éyvov, ‘I learnt,’ implies 

more intimate experimental acquaintance; gdew is simple knowledge that 
there was such a thing as lust. 


dmOupjcers. The Greek word has a wider sense than our 
‘covet’; it includes every kind of illicit desire. 

8. dpopptvy AaBotica : ‘ getting a start,’ finding a port dapput, or, 
as we should say, ‘something to take hold of.’ In a military 
sense adopyy = ‘a base of operations’ (Thuc. i. go. 2, &c.). In 
a literary sense dgopyyy AaBeiv = ‘to take a hint,’ ‘adopt a sug- 
gestion’; cf, Eus. £p. ad Carpianum éx rod movnparos rod mpoepy- 
pévov aydpos ciAnpas dpopuds. And so here in a moral sense: Sin 
exists, but apart from Law it has nothing to work upon, no means 
of producing guilt. Law gives it just the opportunity it wants. 

4 Gpaptia: see p. 145, sup. b' 

Sa tis évrohijs. The prep. da and the position of the word 


180 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ___ [VII. 8-18. 


show that it is better taken with xarepydcaro than with ddopp. 
AaB. évrody is the single commandment; véyos the code as a 
whole. 

xwpis yap... vexed. A standing thought which we have had 
before, iv. 15; v. 13: cf. iii. 20. 

9. ELov (envy B; eow 17). St. Paul uses a vivid figurative 
expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning which 
he sometimes gives to it (i. 17; viii. 13, &c.). He is describing 
the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the 
consciousness of law has taken hold upon him; but he uses this 
experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before 
they are restrained by express command. The ‘natural man’ 
flourishes; he does freely and without hesitation all that he has 
a mind to do; he puts forth all his vitality, unembarrassed by 
the checks and thwartings of conscience. It is the kind of life 
which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. 
Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side; but 
this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy: the frieze of 
the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does 
not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to 
trouble its enjoyment of to-day. See the general discussion below. 

évéLnoev: ‘sprang into life’ (T. K. Abbott). Sin at first is 
there, but dormant; not until it has the help of the Law does it 
become an active power of mischief. 

1l. é&ndtmoé pe. The language is suggested by the descrip- 
tion of the Fall (Gen. iii. 13 LXX; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. i. 
14). Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. In both 
cases the ‘commandment ’—acknowledged only to be broken— 
is the instrument which is made use of to bring about the disas- 
trous and fatal end. 

12. 6 pév vépos. The pe expects a following 32. St. Paul had 
probably intended to write 7 S€ duapria xarnpydcaro év éuoi Tov 
@avarov, or something of the kind; but he digresses to explain how 
a good Law can have evil consequences, and so he fails to com- 
plete the sentence on the same plan on which he had begun it. On 
St. Paul’s view of the nature and functions of the Law see below. 


It is hardly safe to argue with Zahn (Gesch. d. X. ii. 517) from the lan- 
guage of Tertullian (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him 
a corrupt Marcionitic text—not, Zahn thinks, actually due to Marcion, but 
corrupted since his time—* évroA7) avrod dixata for } évr. dyia kat Sixaia, 
It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely: in De 
Pudic. 6 he leaves out rat dieaia, lex quidem sancta est et pracceptum 
sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common in 
Latin versions and writers). 


13. Why was this strange perversion of so excellent a thing as 
the Law permitted? This very perversion served to aggravate the 


VII. 18-15.] LAW AND SIN 181, 


horror of Sin: not content with the evil which it is in itself it 
must needs turn to evil that which was at once Divine in its origin 
and beneficent in its purpose. To say this was to pronounce its 
condemnation: it was like giving it full scope, so that the whole 
world might see (pavj) of what extremities («a6 imepBodrnv) Sin 
was capable. 

14. The section which follows explains more fully by a psycho- 
logical analysis ow it is that the Law is broken and that Sin 
works such havoc. There is a germ of good in human nature, 
a genuine desire to do what is right, but this is overborne by the 
force of temptation acting through the bodily appetites and 
passions, 

mveusatikds. The Law is ‘spiritual,’ as the Manna and the 
Water from the Rock were ‘spiritual’ (1 Cor. x. 3, 4) in the sense 
of being ‘Spirit-caused’ or ‘ Spirit-given,’ but with the further 
connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds 
to its origin. 

adpkwvos (capxixds NC LP al.) denotes simply the mazerial of 
which human nature is composed, ‘made of flesh and blood’ 
(1 Cor. iii. 1; 2 Cor. iii. 3), and as such exposed to all the tempta- 
tions which act through the body. 


There has been considerable controversy as to the bearing of the antithesis 
in St. Paul between the odpé and mvedyua, It has been maintained that this 
antithesis amounts to dualism, that St. Paul regards the odpf as inherently 
evil and the cause of evil, and that this dualistic conception is Greek or 
Hellenistic and not Jewish in its origin. So, but with differences among 
themselves, Holsten (1855, 1868), Rich. Schmidt (1870), Liidemann (1872), 
and to some extent Pfleiderer (1873). [In the second edition of his Paudin- 
#smus (1890), Pfleiderer refers so much of St. Paul’s teaching on this head 
as seems to go beyond the O. T. not to Hellenism, but to the later Jewish 
doctrine of the Fall, much as it has been expounded above, p. 136 ff. In this 
we need not greatly differ from him.] The most elaborate reply was that of 
H. H. Wendt, Deze Begriffe Fleisch und Geist (Gotha, 1878), which was 
made the basis of an excellent treatise in English by Dr. W. P. Dickson, 
St. Paul’s Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, Glasgow, 1883. Reference 
may also be made to the well-considered statement of Dr. Gifford (Aomans, 
PP- 48-52). The controversy may now be regarded as practically closed. 

ts result is summed up by Lipsius in these decisive words: ‘ The Pauline 

anthropology rests entirely on an Old Testament base; the elements in it 
which are supposed to be derived from Hellenistic dualism must simply be 
denied (sind einfach su bestrettem).’ The points peculiar to St. Paul, 
according to Lipsius, are the sharper contrast between the Divine mvedya and 
the human yv x7, and the reading of a more ethical sense into odpf, which 
was originally physical, so that in Gal. v. 19 ff., Rom. viii. 4 ff. the odpf 
becomes a principle directly at war with the avedua. In the present passage 
(Rom. vii. 14-25) the opposing principle is dyapria, and the odpf is only the 
material medium (.Subs¢rat) of sensual impulses and desires. We may add 
that this is St. Paul’s essential view, of which all else is but the variant 
expression. 

15. karepydlopar = perjicto, per petro, ‘ to carry into effect,’ ‘ put into execue 
tion’: apdcc@ = agp, to act as a moral and responsible being: sam = facto, 


182 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII. 15-21, 


to produce a certain result without reference to its moral character, and 
simply as it might be produced by inarimate mechanism (see also the notes 
on ch. i. 32: ii. 9). Of course the specific sense may not be always marked 
by the context, but here it is well Lorne out throughout. For a fuller 
account of the distinction see Schmidt, Lat. «. Gr. Synonymik, p. 294 ff. 

ov ytvéoKw appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of 
will and motive, the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the 
promptings of the latter. The man acts, so to speak, blindly: he is not 
a fully conscious agent: a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out 
of his hands. 

6 @€Aw. The exact distinction between 0¢Aw and BovAopuat has been much 
disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in 
N. T. usage, BovAopa: lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, delibera- 
tion, 6€Aw on the more emotional aspect of will: in this context it is 
evidently something short of the final act of volition, and practically = ‘ wish,’ 
‘desire.’ See especially the full and excellent note in Grm.-Thay. 


17. vuvi 8é: ‘as it is,’ ‘as the case really lies’; the contrast is 
logical, not temporal. 

4] oixodoa év éuot dpapria. [Read évoxotca with 8B, Method. 
(ap. Phot. cod., non autem ap. Epiph.)] This indwelling Sin cor- 
responds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter: a further 
proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is 
not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objective 
existence. 

18. év épot, Todt’ éorw, «A. The part of the man in which 
Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscience, but 
his lower self, the ‘ flesh,’ which, if not itself evil, is too easily made 
the instrument of evil. 

TapdKettat pot: ‘lies to my hand,’ ‘within my reach.’ 


ob SABC 47 67** al., Edd.: ovx eipichw DEFGKLP &c. 
20. 8 ob Aw BC DEFG al., WH. RV.: 38 ob 06m yo RAKLP 
&c., Tisch. WH. marg. 


21. cipioxw dpa tiv vépov: ‘I find then this rule,’ ‘this con- 
straining principle,’ hardly ‘this constantly recurring experience,’ 
which would be too modern. The véuos here mentioned is akin 
to the €repov vépov of ver. 23. It is not merely the observed fact 
that the will to do good is forestalled by evil, but the coercion of 
the will that is thus exercised. Lips. seems to be nearest to the 
mark, das Gesetz d. h. die object'9 mir auferlegte Nothwendigkeit. 

Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, have tried to 
make rév véuov = the Mosaic Law: but either (i) they read into the 
passage more than the context will allow; or (ii) they give to the 
sentence a construction which is linguistically intolerable. The 
best attempt in this direction is prob. that of Va. who translates, 
‘T find then with regard to the Law, that to me who would fain 
do that which is good, to me (I say) that which is evil is present.’ 
He supposes a double break in the construction: (1) rév vépor 
put as if the sentence had been intended to run ‘I find then the 


VII. 21-24] LAW AND SIN 184 


Law—when I wish to do good—powerless to help me’; and (2) 
€uot repeated for the sake of clearness. It is apparently in 
a similar sense that Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative 
rendering (the first being as above), ‘ With respect to the law, 
I find,’ &c. But the anacoluthon after roy »éuov seems too great 
even for dictation to an amanuensis. Other expedients like those 
of Mey. (not Mey.-W.) Fri. Ew. are still more impossible. See 
esp. Gif. Additional Note, p. 145. 

22. cuvySopat Ta vdpw tod Gcod: what it approves, I gladly and 
cordially approve. 

kata tiv éow dvOpwroy. St. Paul, as we have seen (on vi. 6), 
makes great use of this phrase avépwzes, which goes back as far as 
Plato. Now he contrasts the ‘old’ with the ‘new man’ (or, as 
we should say, the ‘old’ with the ‘new se/f’); now he contrasts 
the ‘outer man,’ or the body (6 ¢ dv6pwmos 2 Cor. iv. 16), with the 
‘inner man,’ the conscience or reason (2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16). 

23. érepov vopow: ‘a different law’ (for the distinction between 
érepos, ‘ different,’ and a@Xos, ‘ another,’ ‘a second,’ see the commen- 
tators on Gal. i. 6, 7). 

There are two Imperatives (véuor) within the man: one, that of 
conscience; the other, that proceeding from the action of Sin 
upon the body. One of these Imperatives is the moral law, ‘Thou 
shalt’ and ‘Thou shalt not’; the other is the violent impulse of 
passion. 

7 vope tod voéds pou. For vois see oni. 28: it is the rational 
part of conscience, the faculty which decides between right and 
wrong: strictly speaking it belongs to the region of morals rather 
than to that of intercourse with God, or religion; but it may be 
associated with and brought under the influence of the mvetua 
(Eph. iv. 23 dvavectoOat t@ mvevuatt rod vods: cf. Rom. xii. 2), just as 
on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom. 1. 28). 

24. tadainwpos éyo av@pwros. A heart-rending cry, from the 
depths of despair. It is difficult to think of this as exactly St. Paul’s 
own experience: as a Christian he seems above it, as a Pharisee 
below it—self-satisfaction was too ingrained in the Pharisaic temper, 
the performance of Pharisaic righteousness was too well within the 
compass of an average will, But St. Paul was not an ordinary 
Pharisee. He dealt too honestly with himself, so that sooner or 
later the self-satisfaction natural to the Pharisee must give way: 
and his experience as a Christian would throw back a lurid light on 
those old days ‘ of which he was now ashamed.’ So that, what with 
his knowledge of himself, and what with his sympathetic penetration 
into the hearts of others, he had doubiless materials enough for the 
picture which he has drawn here with such extraordinary power. 
He has sat for his own likeness; but there are ideal traits in the 
picture as well, 


184 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS  [VII. 24, 25. 


dx tod odpatos 706 Bavdrov tovrov. In construction rovrov might 
go with oapuros (‘from this body of death’): but it is far better to 
take it in the more natural connexion with 6avarov; ‘the body of 
this death’ which already has me in its clutches. Sin and death 
are inseparable ; as the body involves me in sin it also involves me 
in mortality; physical death to be followed by eternal, the death of 
the body by the death of the soul. 

25. dpa ody x.t.A. A terse compressed summary of the previous 
paragraph, vv. 7-24, describing in two strokes the state of things 
prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that which 
comes from deep feeling. The particular phrases hardly seem to 
need further explanation. 


evxapioTS 7G Och. The true reading is probably xdpis rp @eg. The 
evidence stands thus, 

xdapis TH Oc B, Sah., Orig. seme/ Hieron. semel. 

Xapis 5 TH OcG N*C? (de C* non liquet) minusc. alig., Boh. Arm., Cyr.- 

Alex. Jo.-Damase. 

} xdpis rov Ocod DE 38, de Vulg., Orig.-lat. d%s Hieron. semel Ambrstr. 

§ xapis Tod Kupiov FG, fg, cf. Iren.-lat. 

evxapioT® TH OCH N*AKLP &c., Syrr. Goth., Orig. ds Chrys. 

Theodrt. af. [evxapia7® Oem Method. ag. Epiph. ¢od., sed xapis TP 
cp vel xapis 52 TH Oe™ Epiph, edd. pr.; vid. Bonwetsch, Methodius 
von Olympus, i. 204.] 

It is easy to see how the reading of B would explain all the rest. The 
reading of the mass of MSS. would be derived from it (not at once but by 
successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters, 

ToyToy| ey ]yapic[Tw ]Tweew. 
The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table. 


yapic tm Oe@ 


eyyapict@ TH Oe@p 
Kapic AE TH Oe & yAdpic toy Oeoy (OF) 


& yApic Troy Kypioy (Ky) 


The other possibility would be that evxapio7G 7G @eH had got reduced ta 
xdpis TH Oe@ by successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken 
place very early. It is also conceivable that xdpis 5¢ preceded xapis only. 


The Inward Conflict. 


Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated 
as if they were raised, by this section. (1) Is the experience 
described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (2) Is it, 
or is it not, the experience of St. Paul htmself? 

1 (a). Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the 
passage refers to the unregenerate man. (i) Appeal is made to 


guch expressions as mempapevos bro ryv duapriay yer. 14, xarepyafouas 


VII. 7-25. | LAW AND SIN 185 


[rd kaxéy} VV. 19, 20, tadainwpos ¢ya avOpwros ver. 24. It is argued 
that language like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state. 
(ii) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for 
the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be 
quoted from Pagan literature, ¢.g. the video meliora of Ovid and 
many other like sayings in Euripides, Xenophon, Seneca, Epictetus 
(see Dr. T. K. Abbott on ver. 15 of this chapter). (iii) The use of 
the present tense is explained as dramatic. The Apostle throws 
himself back into the time which he is describing. 

(8) Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 310 a.p.), Augustine 
and the Latin Fathers generally, the Reformers especially on the 
Calvinistic side, refer the passage rather to the regenerate. (i) An 
opposite set of expressions is quoted, picd [7d xaxdv] ver. 15, Oédo 
Toueiv TO KaAGv VET. 21, cvv7|Souat TO vouw Ver. 22. It is said that these 
are inconsistent with the amAXorpimpévor xat <x8poi of Col. i. 21 and 
with descriptions like that of Rom. viii. 7, 8. (ii) Stress is laid on 
the present tenses: and in proof that these imply a present experi- 
ence, reference is made to passages like 1 Cor. ix. 27 imamd{a pov 
To g@pa Kat SovAkaywy@. That even the regenerate may have this 
mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Gal. vi. 17. —— 

Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things 
described is certainly a conflict in which opposite forces are struggling 
for the mastery. 

Whether such a state belongs to the regenerate or the unre- 
generate man seems to push us back upon the further question, 
What we mean by ‘regenerate.’ The word is used in a higher and 
a lower sense. In the lower sense it is applied to all baptized 
Christians. In that sense there can be little doubt that the 
experience described may fairly come within it. 

But on the other hand. the higher stages of the spiritual life seem 
to be really excluded. The sigh of relief in ver. 25 marks a dividing 
line between a period of conflict and a period where conflict is 
practically ended. ‘This shows that the present tenses are in any 
case not to be taken too literally. Three steps appear to be 
distinguished, (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver. 9), happy, 
but only from ignorance and thoughtlessness ; (ii) then the sharp 
collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity ; 
(iii) the end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this 
collision by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ, of 
which more will be said in the next chapter. The state there 
described is that of the truly and fully regenerate; the prolonged 
struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as inter 
regenerandum (Gif. after Dean Jackson). 

Or perhaps we should do better still to refuse to introduce so 
technical a term as ‘regeneration’ into a context from which it is 
wholly absent. St. Paul, it is true, regarded Christianity as operating 


\<\ 


186 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII. 7-26. 


a change in man. But here, whether the moment described is 
before or after the embracing of Christianity, in any case abstraction 
is made of all that is Christian. Law and the soul are brought face 
to face with each other, and there is nothing between them. Not 
until we come to ver. 25 is there a single expression used which 
belongs to Christianity. And the use of it marks that the conflict 
is ended. 

(2) As to the further question whether St. Paul is speaking of 
himself or of ‘some other man’ we observe that the crisis which is 
described here is not at least the same as that which is commonly 
known as his ‘ Conversion.’ Here the crisis is moral; there it was 
in the first instance intellectual, turning upon the acceptance of 
the proposition that Jesus was truly the Messiah. The decisive 
point in the conflict may be indeed the appropriation of Christ 
through His Spirit, but it is at least not an intellectual conviction, 
such as might exist along with a severe moral struggle. On the 
other hand, the whole description is so vivid and so sincere, so 
evidently wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, 
that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. It is really 
not so much imaginary as imaginative. It is not a literal photo 
graph of any one stage in the Apostle’s career, but it is a com 
structive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements sup- 
plied to him by self-introspection. We may well believe that the 
regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back 
to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the 
conviction of Sin, The incubus of the Law he had felt most 
keenly when he was a ‘Pharisee of the Pharisees.’ Without 
putting an exact date to the struggle which follows we shall prob- 
ably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to 
the period before his Conversion. It was then that the powerless- 
ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought 
home to him. And all his experience, at whatever date, of the 
struggle of the natural man with temptation is here gathered 
together and concentrated in a single portraiture. It would 
obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized experience like 
this too rigidly. The process described comes to different men 
at different times and in different degrees; to one early, to an- 
other later; in one man it would lead up to Christianity, in 
another it might follow it; in one it would be quick and sudden, 
in another the slow growth of years. We cannot lay down any 
rule. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to 
say with the Apostle, ‘Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord.’ It is just in his manner to sum up thus in a sen- 
tence what he is about to expand into a chapter. The break 
occurs at a very suitable place: ch. viii is the true conclusion te 
ch. vii. 


VII. 7-25.) LAW AND SIN 187 


St. Paul’s View of the Law. 


It was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. Paul must have 
seemed most revolutionary to his countrymen. And yet it would 
be a mistake to suppose that he ever lost that reverence for the 
Law as a Divine institution in which every Jew was born and bred 
and to which he himself was still more completely committed by 
his early education as a Pharisee (Gal. i. 14; Phil. iii. 5 ££). This 
old feeling of his comes out in emotional passages like Rora. ix. 4 
(cf. iii. 2; ii. 25, &c.). And even where, as in the section before 
us, he is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness of the Law 
to restrain human Passion the Apostle still lays down expressly 
that the Law itself is ‘holy and righteous and good’; and a little 
lower down (ver. 14) he gives it ‘the epithet ‘ spiritual,’ — is 
equivalent to ascribing to it a direct Divine origin. 

It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in 
facing facts that St. Paul ever brought himself to give up his 
belief in the sufficiency of the Law; and there is no greater proof 
of his power and penetration of mind than the way in which, 
when once his thoughts were turned into this channel, he followed 
out the whole subject into its inmost recesses. We can hardly 
doubt that his criticism of the Law as a principle of religion dates 
back to a time before his definite conversion to Christianity. The 
process described in this chapter clearly belongs to a period when 
the Law of Moses was the one authority which the Apostle re- 
cognized. It represents just the kind of difficulties and struggles 
which would be endured long before they led to a complete shift- 
ing of belief, and which would only lead to it then because a new 
and a better solution had been found. The apparent suddenness 
of St. Paul’s conversion was due to the tenacity with which he 
held on to his Jewish faith and his reluctance to yield to con- 
clusions which were merely negative. It was not till a whole 
group of positive convictions grew up within him and showed their 
power of supplying the vacant place that the Apostle withdrew his 
allegiance, and when he had done so came by degrees to see 
the true place of the Law in the Divine economy. 

From the time that he came to write the Epistle to the Romans 
the process is mapped out before us pretty clearly. 

The doubts began, as we have seen, in psychological experience. 
With the best will in the world St. Paul had found that really to 
keep the Law was a matter of infinite difficulty. However much 
it drew him one way there were counter influences which drew 
him another. And these counter influences proved the stronger 
of the two. The Law itself was cold, inert, passive. It pointed 
severely to the path of right and duty, but there its function 


188 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VII. 7-28. 


ended; it gave no help towards the performance of that which it 
required. Nay, by a certain strange perversity in human nature, 
it seemed actually to provoke to disobedience. The very fact 
that a thing was forbidden seemed to make its attractions all the 
greater (Rom. vii. 8). And so the last state was worse than the 
first. The one sentence in which St. Paul sums up his experience 
of Law is 8:4 vduou éemiyrwors apaprias (Rom. iii. 20). Its effect 
therefore was only to increase the condemnation: it multiplied sin 
(Rom. v. 20); it worked wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it brought man- 
kind ynder a curse (Gal. iii. 10). 

And this was equally true of the individual and of the race ; the 
better and fuller the law the more glaring was the contrast to the 
practice of those who lived under it. The Jews were at the head 
of all mankind in their privileges, but morally they were not much 
better than the Gentiles. In the course of his travels St. Paul was 
ied to visit a number of the scattered colonies of Jews, and when 
he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them 
a biting irony (Rom. ii. 17-29). 

The truth must be acknowledged; as a system, Law of what- 
ever kind had failed. The breakdown of the Jewish Law was 
most complete just because that law was the best. It stood out 
in history as a monument, revealing the right and condemning 
the wrong, heaping up the pile of human guilt, and nothing 
more. On a large scale for the race, as on a small scale for the 
individual, the same verdict held, d:a vduou emiyywors daprias. 

Clearly the fault of all this was not with the Law. The fault 
lay in the miserable weakness of human nature (Rom. viii. 3). 
The Law, as a code of commandments, did all that it was intended 
to do. But it needed to be supplemented. And it was just this 
supplementing which Christianity brought, and by bringing it set 
the Law in its true light and in its right place in the evolution of 
the Divine plan. St. Paul sees spread before him the whole ex- 
panse of history. The dividing line across it is the Coming of 
the Messiah. All previous to that is a period of Law—first of 
imperfect law, such law as was supplied by natural religion and 
conscience ; and then of relatively perfect law, the law given by 
God from Sinai. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law 
increased the sum of human happiness. Rather the contrary. 
In the infancy of the world, as in the infancy of the individual, 
there was a blithe unconsciousness of right and wrong; impulse 
was followed wherever it led; the primrose path of enjoyment 
had no dark shadow cast over it. Law was this dark shadow. 
In proportion as it became stricter, it deepened the gloom. If 
law had been kept, or where law was kept, it brought with it 
a new kind of happiness; but to a serious spirit like St. Paal’s 
it seemed as if the law was never kept—never satisfactorily 


VIII. 1-4.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 189 


kept—at all. There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern 
tule of self-judgement, which was fatal to peace of mind: ‘ Who- 
soever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, 
he is become guilty of all’ (Jas. ii. 10; cf. Gal. iii, 16; Rom. 
x. 5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must be 
sought elsewhere. And it was this happiness and refief which 
St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of ch. vii 
marks the point at which the great burden which lay upon the 
conscience rolls away; and the next chapter begins with an 
uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity; ‘ There is 
therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’ 

Taken thus in connexion with that new order of things into 
which it was to pass and empty itself, the old order of Law had at 
last its difficulties cleared away. It remained as a stage of 
salutary and necessary discipline. All God’s ways are not bright 
upon the surface. But the very clouds which He draws over the 
heavens will break in blessings; and break just at that moment 
when their darkness is felt to be most oppressive. St. Paul him- 
self saw the gloomy period of law through to its end (réAos yap 
pouov Xpiotos cis dixatoovyny mavri ro miotevovrs Rom. x. 4); and 
his own pages reflect, better than any other, the new hopes and 
energies by which it was succeeded. 


LIFE IN THE SPIRIT. 
THE FRUITS OF THE INCARNATION. 


VIII. 1-4. The result of Christ’s interposition ts to 
dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to 
instal in tts stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the 
Law of Moses tried to do but failed, the Incarnation has 
accomplished. 


*This being so, no verdict of ‘Guilty’ goes forth any longer 
against the Christian. He lives in closest union with Christ. 
* The Spirit of Christ, the medium of that union, with all its life- 
giving energies, enters and issues its laws from his heart, dis- 
possessing the old usurper Sin, putting an end to its authority and 
to the fatal results which it brought with it. *For where the old 
system failed, the new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses 
could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that 
our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now 
God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to 


190 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ [VIII 1, & 


take upon Him that same human nature with all its attributes 
except sin: in that nature He died to free us from sin: and this 
Death of His carried with it a verdict of condemnation against Sin 
and of acquittal for its victims; * so that from henceforth what the 
Law lays down as right might be fulfilled by us who regulate our 
lives not according to the appetites and passions of sense, but at 
the dictates of the Spirit. 


1 ff. This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of xapus 16 
Ged S14 "Inco Xpiorod rod Kupiov judy in the last verse of ch. vii. It 
describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its begin- 
ning to its end—that life of which the Apostle speaks elsewhere 
(Col. iii. 3) as ‘hid with Christ in God.’ It works gradually up 
through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of vv. 1-17 to 
the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv. 18-30, 
and thence to the magnificent climax of vv. 31-39. 


There is evidence that Marcion retained vy. 1-11 of this chapter, probably 
with no very noticeable variation from the text which has come down to us 
fire do not know which of the two competing readings he had in ver. 10). 

ertullian leaps from viii. 11 to x. 2, implying that much was cut out, but 
we cannot determine how much. 


1. xatdkpipa. One of the formulae of Justification: xardxpurs 
and xatdkpia are correlative to dixaiwots, dixaiwpa; both sets of 
phrases being properly forensic. Here, however, the phrase rois 
év X. "I, which follows shows that the initial stage in the Christian 
career, which is in the strictest sense the stage of Justification, has 
been left behind and the further stage of union with Christ has 
succeeded to it. In this stage too there is the same freedom from 
condemnation, secured by 2 process which is explained more fully 
in ver. 3 (cf. vi. 7-10). The xardxpiois which used to am upon the 
sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin. 

pi wxatd odpka teprmatotow, Gk\Ad Kkatrd tvedpa. An FR. 
inteociucet (from ver. 4) at two steps: the first clause py? xaTd cdpxa wepima- 
rovow in A D> 137, fm Vulg. Pesh. Goth. Arm., Bas. Chrys.; the second 

Clause dAAG xaTd mvedpa in the mass of later authorities N°D°EKLP &c.; 

the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, the Latin Version 


of Origen and perhaps Origen himself with a fourth-century dialogue attri- 
buted to him, Athanasius and others omit both. ° 


2. 6 vépos to Mveduatos = the authority exercised by the Spirit. 
We have had the same somewhat free use of vdépos in the last 
chapter, esp. in Ver. 23 6 vdpos Tov vods, 6 vduos THs duaprias: it is no 
longer a ‘ code’ but an authority producing regulated action such 
as would be produced by a code. 

700 Mvedpatos tis Lwijs. The gen. expresses the ‘ effect wrought’ 
(Gif.), but it also expresses more: the Spirit brings life because it 
essentially #5 life. 


VIII. 2, 3.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 191 


év Xpiot@ “Ingod goes with 7\evOépwce: the authority of the Spirit 
operating through the union with Christ, freed me, &c. For the 
phrase itself see on ch. vi. 11 


qAcvOépacé pe. A small group of important authorities (N BF G, 
m Pesh., Tert. 1/2 vel potzus 2/2 Chrys. codd.) has jAcvGépwoév oe. The 
combination of 8 B with Latin and Syriac authorities shows that this reading 
must be extremely early, going back to the time before the Western text 
diverged from the main body. Still it can hardly be right, as the second 
person is nowhere suggested in the context, and it is more probable that ce 
is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of #Acv0épwae (ce). 
Dr. Hort suggests the omission of both pronouns (jas also being found), 
and although the evidence for this is confined to some MSS. of Arm. (to 
which Dr. Hort would add ‘perhaps’ the commentary of Origen as repre- 
sented by Rufinus, but this is not certain), it was a very general tendency 
among scribes to supply an object to verbs originally without one. We do 
not expect a return to first pers. sing. after rots év X.’I., and the scanty 
evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the 
omission of cipyxévat in iv. 1, for ei ye in v. 6, or for xapis TO Oe@ in vii. 25. 
But we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing ye in brackets. 


Grd tod vépou Tis Gpaptias Kal tod Oavdrou = the authority 
exercised by Sin and ending in Death: see on vii. 23, and on 
6 vou. T. mvevp, above. 

3. 16 yap dduvaroy Tod vénov. Two questions arise as to these 
words. (1) What is their construction? The common view, 
adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Zroad. 489), is that they 
form a sort of nom. absolute in apposition to the sentence. Gif. 
translates, ‘the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that,’ 
&c. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in 
apposition not as nom. but as accus. 


A most accomplished scholar, the late Mr. James Riddell, in his ‘ Digest 
of Platonic Idioms’ (7he Apology of Plato, Oxford, 1877, p. 122), lays down 
two propositions about constructions like this: ‘ (i) These Noun-Phrases and 
Neuter-Pronouns are Accusatives. The prevalence of the Neuter Gender 
makes this difficult to prove; but such instances as are decisive afford an 
analogy for the rest: Theaet. 153 C ént totros tov KoAopava, avayKatw 
mpooBiBagav «.7.A. Cf. Soph. O. 7. 603 nat avd’ ZXeyxov... mevOov, and 
the Adverbs dpxynv, axunv, tiv mpwtnv, &e. (ii) They represent, by Appo- 
sition or Substitution, the sentence itself. To say, that they are Cognate 
Accusatives, or in Apposition with the (unexpressed) Cognate Accus., would 
be inadequate to the facts. For (1) in most of the instances the sense points 
out that the Noun-Phrase or Pronoun stands over against the sentence,-or— 
portion of a sentence, as a whole; (2) in many of them, not the internal ~ 
force but merely the rhetorical or logical form of the sentence is in view. It 
might be said that they are Predicates, while the sentence itself is the 
Subject.’ [Examples follow, but that from Z/eaet. given above is as clear 
asany.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who regards 
70 ddvv. as accus. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate 
accus. which is not expressed: ‘ The impossible thing of the Law... God 
(effected; that is He] condemned sin in the flesh.’ It is true that an apt 
parallel is quoted from a Cor. vi. 13 tiv Bt airay dytipobiay mAaTivOnTe 
wai ipeis: but this would seem to come under the same rule. The argument 
that if 7é ddvv. had been aceus. it would probably have stood at the end of 


193 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIIz. 3. 


the sentence, like Tijv Aoyu}v AaTpelay iuay in Rom. xii. 1, appears to be 

refuted by Tov xoAopava in Theaet. above. Win. Gr. § xxxii. 7, p. 290 E. T. 

while recognizing the accus. use (§ lix. 9, p. 669 E. T.), seems to prefer to 

take 7d ddvy.as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c. 

(2) Is rd ddvv. active or passive? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win. 
ut sup.) contends for the former, on the ground that if adv». were 
passive it should be followed by ré vdu@ not rod vépov. Tertullian 
(De Res. Carn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the 
gen., guod tnvalidum erat legis. But on the other hand if not Origen 
himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive 
rendering, and treats rod véuov as practically equivalent to r@ vou: 
quod imposstbile erat legi*. Yet Rufinus himself clearly uses 
imposstbilis in an active sense in his comment; and the Greek of 
Origen, as given in Cramer’s Catena, p. 125, appears to make rd 
addy, active: omep yap 4 apern idia pices icxupd, ovrw Kat 7 Kakia Kal 
ta an’ aitys acGerm Kat ddivata ... Tov To.ovrov vdpnou n vats advvards 
éor. Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the 
sentence) : ro adivaroy, rouréott 7 Gabevoiv, Wulg.and Cod. Clarom. 
are slightly more literal: guod zmpossibile erat legis. The gen. might 
mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law 
marked ‘impossible,’ a portion of the field which it could not 
control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more 
in accordance with the Biblical use of advv. and also to give a some- 
what easier construction: if ro advv. is active it is not quite a simple 
case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a sort 
of nom. absolute (‘The impotence of the Law being this that,’ &c., 
Gif.), which seems rather strained. But it must be confessed that 
the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of 
taking the words, and that on a point—the natural interpretation of 
language— where ancient authority is especially valuable. 


An induction from the use of LXX and N.T. would seem to show that 
a8uvaros masc. and fem. was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two 
times [3 vv. ll.] in LXX, Wisd. xvii. 14 tiv ddvvarov éyras viera Kat ef 
ddvvarov addov puxav émedOotcay, being alone somewhat ambiguous and 
peculiar), while ddvv. neut. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven 
in N.T.). It is true that the exact phrase 7d ddvvarov does not occur, but 
in Luke xviii. 27 we have 7a ddvvara rapa dvOpdras SvvaTa ears wapa TH CEQ. 
év @: not ‘because’ (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf.), but ‘in which’ or 
‘wherein,’ defining the point in which the impossibility (inability) 
of the Law consisted. For qo6éver d:a rijs capxéds comp. Vii. 22, 23. 
The Law points the way to what is right, but frail humanity is 
tempted and falls, and so the Law’s good counsels come to nothing. 

tov gautod uidv. The emphatic éavrod brings out the community 
of nature between the Father and the Son: cf. rod idiov viob ver. 33; 
rev viow ris aydinns avrov Col. i, 13. 


® The text is not free from suspicion. 


VIII. 3.} LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 193 


év dpoudpatt capxds dpaptias: the flesh of Christ is ‘like’ ours 
inasmuch as it is flesh; ‘like,’ and only ‘like,’ because it is not 
sinful: ostendit nes quidem habere carnem peccatt, Filium vero Dei 
similitudinem habuisse carnts peccatt, non carnem peccati (Orig.-lat.). 

Pfleiderer and Holsten contend that even the flesh of Christ was 
‘sinful flesh,’ z.¢. capable of sinning ; but they are decisively refuted 
by Gif. p. 165. Neither the Greek nor the argument requires that 
the flesh of Christ shall be regarded as szmful flesh, though it is 
His Flesh—His Incarnation—which brought Him into contact 
with Sin. 

kat wept dpaptias. This phrase is constantly used in the O.T. 
for the ‘sin-offering’; so ‘more than fifty times in the Book of 
Leviticus alone’ (Va.); and it is taken in this sense here by Orig.- 
lat. Quod hostia pro peccato factus est Christus, et oblatus sit pro 
purgatione peccatorum, omnes Scripturae testaniur ... Per hance ergo 
hostiam carnis suae, quae dicttur pro peccato, damnavit peccatum in 
carne, &c. The ritual of the sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev. iv. 
The most characteristic feature in it is the sprinkling with blood of 
the horns of the altar of incense. Its object was to make atonement 
especially for sins of ignorance. It was no doubt typical of the 
Sacrifice of Christ. Still we need not suppose the phrase sepi 
dyapr. here specially limited to the sense of ‘sin-offering.’ It 
includes every sense in which the Incarnation and Death of Christ 
had relation to, and had it for their object to remove, human sin. 

Katéxpwve Thy dpaptiay év Ty oapxt. The key to this difficult 
clause is supplied by ch. vi. 7-10. By the Death of Christ upon the 
Cross, a death endured in His human nature, He once and for ever 
broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through 
that nature. Henceforth Sin can lay no claim against Him. 
Neither can it lay any claim against the believer; for the believer 
also has died with Christ. Henceforth when Sin comes to prosecute 
its claim, it is cast in its suit and its former victim is acquitted. 
The one culminating and decisive act by which this state of things 
was brought about is the Death of Christ, to which all the subse- 
quent immunity of Christians is to be referred. 


The parallel passage, vi. 6-11, shows that this summary 
condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not 
in His Life; se that caréxpwe cannot be adequately explained either 
by the proof which Christ’s Incarnation gave that human nature 
might be sinless, or by the contrast of His sinlessness with man’s 
sin. In Matt. xii. 41, 42 (‘the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the 
judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it,’ &c.) xaraxpivew 
has this sense of ‘condemn by contrast,’ but there is a greater fulness 
of meaning here. 


The ancients rather miss the mark in their comments on this passage. 
Thus Orig.-lat. dammavit teccatum, hoc est, fugavit peccatum et abstulst 


194 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 3-5, 


(comp. T. K. Abbott, ‘effectually condemned so as to expel"): but it does 
not appear how this was done. The commoner view is based on Chrys., 
who claims for the incarnate Christ a threefold victory over Sin, as not 
yielding to it, as overcoming it (in a forensic sense), and convicting it of 
injustice in handing over to death His own sinless body as if it were sinfal. 
Similarly Euthym.-Zig. and others in part. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory 
of Christ over Sin as passing over to the Christian through the indwelling 
of the Holy Ghost and the Eucharist (dia rs uvorings evAoylas). This is 
at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian 
with Christ. But the victory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of 
sinlessness, but on the absolute severance from sin involved in the Death 
upon the Cross and the Resurrection. 


év rH capki goes with xaréxpwe, The Death of Christ has the 
efficacy which it has because it is the death of His Flesh: by means 
of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (vi. 10; 
Heb. vii. 16; x. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 18); but through the mystical 
union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours 
(Lips.). 

4. 173 Stxatwpa: ‘the justifying,’ Wic., ‘the justification, Rhem. 
after Vulg. zustificatio; Tyn. is better, ‘the rightewesnes requyred 
of (z.¢. by) the lawe.’ We have already seen that the proper sense 
of 8:ka‘wua is ‘ that which is laid down as right,’ ‘ that which has the 
force of right’: hence it = here the statutes of the Law, as righteous 
statutes. Comp. on i. 32; ii. 26. 


It is not clear how Chrys. (= Euthym.-Zig.) gets for Sialwpa the sense 
70 rédos, 6 ckomds, TO KaTépbopa. 


Tots ph Kata odpKxa tepttatodow: ‘those who walk by the rule 
of the flesh,’ whose guiding principle is the flesh (and its grati- 
fication). The antithesis of Flesh and Spirit is the subject of 
the next section. 


THE LIFE OF THE FLESH AND THE LIFE OF 
THE SPIRIT. 


VIII. 5-11. Compare the two states. The life of self- 
wdulgence involves the breach of God’s law, hostility to 
Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with it 
true life and the sense of reconciliation. You therefore, 
if you are sincere Christians, have in the presence of the 
Spirit a sure pledge of immortality. 

’ These two modes of life are directly opposed to one another. 
If any man gives way to the gratifications of sense, then these and 
nothing else occupy his thoughts and determine the bent of his 
character. And on the other hand, those who let the Holy Spirit 


VIII. 5, 6.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 195 


guide them fix their thoughts and affections on things spiritual. 
* They are opposed in their nature; they are opposed also in their 
consequences. For the consequence of having one’s bent towards 
the things of the flesh is death—both of soul and body, both here 
and hereafter. Just as to surrender one’s thoughts and motives to 
the Spirit brings with it a quickened vitality through the whole man, 
and a tranquillizing sense of reconciliation with God. 

7The gratifying of the flesh can lead only to death, because it 
implies hostility to God. It is impossible for one who indulges the 
flesh at the same time to obey the law of God. *And those who 
are under the influence of the flesh cannot please God. * But you, 
as Christians, are no longer under the influence of the flesh. You 
are rather under that of the Spirit, if the Spirit of God (which, be it 
remembered, is the medium of personal contact with God and 
Christ) is really in abiding communion with you. ™ But if Christ, 
through His Spirit, thus keeps touch with your souls, then mark 
how glorious is your condition. Your body it is true is doomed to 
death, because it is tainted with sin; but your spirit—the highest 
part of you—has life infused into it because of its new state of 
righteousness to which life is so nearly allied. ™In possessing the 
Spirit you have a guarantee of future resurrection. It links you to 
Him whom God raised from the dead. And so even these perish- 
able human bodies of yours, though they die first, God will restore 
to life, through the operation of (or, having regard to) that Holy 
Spirit by whom they are animated. 


5. povoicw: ‘set their minds, or their hearts upon.’ ¢poveiv 
denotes the whole action of the ¢p7, z.e. of the affections and will 
as well as of the reason; cf. Matt. xvi. 23 od qdpoveis ra Tov Ccod, 
adda ta ray dvOporev : Rom. xii. 16; Phil. iii. 19 ; Col. iii. 2, &c. 

6. $pévnpa: the content of ¢poveiv, the general bent of thought 
and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, capé is that side 
of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which 
man’s physical organism leads him into sin. 

@dvaros. Not merely is the gpévnya ris capxés death in effect, 
inasmuch as it has death for its goal, but it is also a present death, 
inasmuch as its present condition contains the seeds which by 
their own inherent force will develop into the death both of body 
and soul. 

Loy. In contrast with the state of things just described, where 
the whole bent of the mind is towards the things of the Spirit, not 

Oo 


196 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 6-9. 


only is there ‘life’ in the sense that a career so ofdered will issue in 
life; it has already in itself the germs of life. As the Spirit itself is 
in Its essence living, so does It impart that which must live. 


For a striking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life see Hort, 
Hulsean Lectures, pp. 98 ff., 189 ff. The following may be quoted: ‘ The 
sense of life which Israel enjoyed was, however, best expressed in the choice 
of the name “life” as a designation of that higher communion with God 
which grew forth in due time as the fruit of obedience and faith. The 
age or wise man or prophet, whose heart had sought the face of the 

ord, was conscious of a second or divine life, of which the first or natural 
life was at once the image and the foundation; a life not imprisoned in 
some secret recess of his soul, but filling his whole self, and overflowing 
upon the earth around him’ (p. 98). Add St. Paul’s doctrine of the in- 
dwelling Spirit, and the intensity of his language becomes intelligible. 


eipyvn = as we have seen not only (i) the state of reconciliation 
with God, but (ii) the sense of that reconciliation which diffuses 
a feeling of harmony and tranquillity over the whole man. 

7. This verse assigns the reason why the ‘mind of the flesh is 
death,’ at the same time bringing out the further contrast between 
the mind of the flesh and that of the Spirit suggested by the 
description of the latter as not only ‘life’ but ‘peace.’ The mind 
of the flesh is the opposite of peace; it involves hostility to God, 
declared by disobedience to His Law. This disobedience is the 
natural and inevitable consequence of giving way to the flesh. 

8. ot 8€: not as AV. ‘so these,’ as if it marked a consequence or 
conclusion from ver. 7, but ‘And’: ver. 8 merely repeats the 
substance of ver. 7 in a slightly different form, no longer abstract 
but personal. The way is thus paved for a more direct application 
to the readers. 

9. év capki,... év mvedpatt. Observe how the thought mounts 
gradually upwards. lvat év capxi = ‘to be under the domination of 
[the] flesh’; corresponding to this eiva: ev mvevpars = ‘to be under 
the domination of [the] spirit,’ se. in the first instance, the human 
spirit. Just as in the one case the man takes his whole bent and 
bias from the lower part of his nature, so in the other case he takes 
it from the highest part of his nature. But that highest part, the 
mvevpa, is what it is by virtue of its affinity to God. It is essentially 
that part of the man which holds communion with God: so that 
the Apostle is naturally led to think of the Divine influences which 
act upon the meidua. He rises almost imperceptibly through the 
nvevpa Of man to the Hvedpa of God. From thinking of the way in 
which the mvedya in its best moods acts upon the character he 
passes on to that influence from without which keeps it in its best 
moods. This is what he means when he says cimep Lvetpa Gcod 
oixei ev tpiv, oixeiv ev denotes a settled permanent penetrative 
influence. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St. Paul 
assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian, 


VIII. 9, 10.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 197 


The way in which év capki is opposed to év mvetpars, and further 
the way in which ¢v mveduars passes from the spirit of man to the 
Spirit of God, shows that we must not press the local significance of 
the preposition too closely. We must not interpret any of the 
varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to 
infringe upon the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities. 
The one thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness 
from all other personalities; and this must hold good even of the 
relation of man to God. The very ease with which St. Paul changes 
and inverts his metaphors shows that the Divine immanence with 
him nowhere means Buddhistic or Pantheistic absorption. We 
must be careful to keep clear of this, but short of it we may use the 
language of closest intimacy. All that friend can possibly receive 
from friend we may believe that man is capable of receiving from 
God. See the note on év Xpioré “Incod in vi. 11; and for the anti- 
thesis of capé and mvedya the small print note on vii. 14. 

ei 8€ tus. A characteristic delicacy of expression: when he is 
speaking on the positive side St. Paul assumes that his readers have 
the Spirit, but when he is speaking on the negative side he will not 
say bluntly ‘if you have not the Spirit,’ but he at once throws 
his sentence into a vague and general force, ‘if any one has 
not,’ &c. 


There are some good remarks on the grammar of the conditional clauses 
in this verse and in vv. 10, 25, in Burton, JZ. and T. §§ 469, 242, 261. 


ouK géotw adtod: he is no true Christian. This amounts to 
saying that all Christians ‘have the Spirit’ in greater or less 
degree. 

10. ei 82 Xprotdés. It will be observed that St. Paul uses the 
phrases Ivedpa Geod, Mvedpa Xpiorov, and Xpiorés in these two verses 
as practically interchangeable. On the significance of this in its 
bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below. 

TO pev cOpa vexpov Sv duaptiav. St. Paul is putting forward first 
the negative and then the positive consequences of the indwelling 
of Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, in the soul. But what is the 
meaning of ‘the body is dead because of sin?’ Of many ways of 
taking the words, the most important seem to be these: (i) ‘ the 
body is dead zmputative, in baptism (vi. 2 ff.), as a consequence of 
sin which made this implication of the body in the Death of Christ 
necessary’ (Lips.). But in the next verse, to which this clearly 
points forward, the stress lies not on death imputed but on physical 
death. (ii) * The body is dead mys#ice, as no longer the instrument 
of sin ( sans énergie productrice des acies charnels), because of sin— 
to which it led’ (Oltr.). This is open to the same objection as the 
last, with the addition that it does not give a satisfactory explanation 
of 8: duapriay, (iii) It remains to take vexpéy in the plain sense of 


198 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [VIII. 10,11. 


‘physical death,’ and to go back for 8° duapriay not to vi. 2 ff. but 
to v. 12 ff., so that it would be the sin of Adam and his descendants 
(Aug. Gif. Go.) perpetuated to the end of time. Olltr. objects that 
vexpov in this case ought to be @yrdv, but the use of vexpéy gives 
a more vivid and pointed contrast to ¢#7—‘a dead thing.’ 

76. Sé mrvedpo Lwh 1d Sixarcocdvny. Clearly the mvedya here meant 
is the human zvetpya which has the properties of life infused into it 
by the presence of the Divine mveipa. wn is to be taken in a wide 
sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life. 8 dinao- 
avvny is also to be taken in a wide sense: it includes all the senses 
in which righteousness. is brought home to man, first imputed, then 
imparted, then practised. 

11. St. Paul is fond of arguing from the Resurrection of Christ 
to the resurrection of the Christian (see p. 117 sup.). Christ is the 
drapxn (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23: the same power which raised Him will 
raise us (x Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14); Phil. iii, 21; 1 Thess. 
iv.14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete 
a formas here. The link which connects the believer with Christ, 
and makes him participate in Christ’s resurrection, is the possession 
of His Spirit (cp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 rots xoinbévras dia rod "Inco Gf 
ovv atta) 

81d Tod evorkodvtos attod Mvedparos. The authorities for the two 
readings, the gen. as above and the acc. d:a 7d evorxoty avrod Lvedpa, 
seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long 
line of authorities headed by NAC, Clem.-Alex. For acc. we have 
a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. Iren.-lat. 


In fuller detail the evidence is as follows: 


ba Tod évoixodyTos #.7.A. SN AC P? al., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. e. Macedon., . 


Boh. Sah. Harcl. Arm. Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Method. (codd. Graec. 
locorum ab Epiphanio c#tatorum) Cyr.-Hieros codd. plur. et ed. Did. 4/5 
Bas 4/4 Chrys. ad 1 Cor. xv. 45, Cyr.-Alex. ter, al. plur. 

Ba 76 evaxoiy x.7.A. BDEFGKLP &c., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. ¢. 
Macedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. codd.); Iren.-lat. Orig. plurées; Method. 
vers. slav. et codd. Epiphanii 1/3 et ex parte 2/3, Cyr.-Hieros. cod. 
Did.-lat. semel (interp. Hieron.) Chrys. ad doc. Tert. Hil. al. plur. 

When these lists are examined, it will be seen at once that the authorities 

for the gen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the acc. predomi- 
nantly Western. The question is how far in each case this main body is 
reinforced by more independent evidence. From this point of view a some- 
‘what increased importance attaches to Harcl. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-Hieros. 
Bas. on the side of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the acc. The 
testimony of Method. is not quite clear. The first place in which the 
passage occurs is a quotation from Origen: here the true reading is probably 
dud. 76 évorxodv, as elsewhere in that writer. The other two places belong to 
Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both cages acc.; 
the Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance acc., in the other gen. 
It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method. himself read acc. and that 
gen. is due to Epiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of using gen. 
In balancing the opposed evidence we remember that there is a distinct 
Western infusion in both B and Orig. in St. Paul’s Epistles, so that the acc. 


VIII. 5-11.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 199 


may rest not on the authority of two families of text, but only of one. On 
the other hand, to Alexandria we must add Palestine, which would count 
for something, though not very much, as being within the sphere of Alexan- 
drian influence, and Cappadocia, which would count for rather more; but 
what is of most importance is the attesting of the Alexandrian reading so far 
West as Hippolytus. Too much importance must not be attached to the 
assertion of the orthodox controversialist in the Dia/. ¢. Macedonios, that 
gen. is found in ‘all the ancient copies’; the author of the dialogue allows 
that the reading is questionable. 


On the whole the preponderance seems to be slightly on the side 
of the gen., but neither reading can be ignored. Intrinsically the 
one reading is not clearly preferable to the other. St. Paul might 
have used equally well either form of expression. It is however 
hardly adequate to say with Dr. Vaughan that if we read the ace. 
the reference is ‘to the ennobling and consecrating effect of the 
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human body.’ The prominent 
idea is rather that the Holy Spirit is Itself essentially a Spirit of Zzf, 
and therefore it is natural that where It is life should be. The gen. 
brings out rather more the direct and personal agency of the Holy 
Spirit, which of course commended the reading to the supporters of 
orthodox doctrine in the Macedonian controversy. 


The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. 


The doctrine of the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit is taken 
over from the O.T., where we have it conspicuously in relation to 
Creation (Gen. i. 2), in relation to Prophecy (1 Sam. x. 10; xi. 6; 
xix. 20, 23, &c.), and in relation to the religious life of the individual 
(Ps. li. x1) and of the nation (Is. lxiii. 10 f.). It was understood 
that the Messiah had a plenary endowment of this Spirit (Is. xi. 2). 
And accordingly in the N.T. the Gospels unanimously record the 
visible, if symbolical, manifestation of this endowment (Mark i. 10; 
Jo. i. 32). And it is an expression of the same truth when in this 
passage and elsewhere St. Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ 
convertibly with Christ Himself. Just as there are many passages 
in which he uses precisely the same language of the Spirit of God 
and of God Himself, so also there are many others in which he 
uses the same language of the Spirit of Christ and of Christ 
Himself. Thus the ‘demonstration of the Spirit’ is a demonstra- 
tion also of the ‘power of God’ (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5); the working of 
the Spirit is a working of God Himself (1 Cor. xii. 11 compared 
with ver. 6) and of Christ (Eph. iv. 11 compared with 1 Cor. xii. 
28, 4). To be ‘Christ’s’ is the same thing as to ‘live in the Spirit’ 
(Gal. v. 22 ff.). Nay, in one place Christ is expressly identified 
with ‘ the Spirit’: ‘the Lord is the Spirit’ (2 Cor. iii. 17): a passage 
which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xv 
tppecbe ev cuovoig Geov, KexTypcvos ddiaxpiTov wvedpa, os éotw “Incois 


200 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 5-1L 


Xpiords (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to é 
not mvedua but the whole sentence ; his note should be read), The 
key to these expressions is really supplied by the passage before us, 
from which it appears that the communication of Christ to the soul 
is really the communication of His Spirit. And, strange to say, we 
find this language, which seems so individual, echoed not only possibly 
by Ignatius but certainly by St. John. As Mr. Gore puts it (Bampion 
Lectures, p. 132), ‘In the coming of the Spirit the Son too was to 
come; in the coming of the Son, also the Father. “ He will come 
unto you,” “I will come unto you,” “ We will come unto you” are 
interchangeable phrases’ (cf. St. John xiv 16-23). 

This is the first point which must be borne clearly in mind: in 
their relation to the human soul the Father and the Son act through 
and are represented by the Holy Spirit. And yet the Spirit is not 
merged either in the Father or in the Son. This is the comple- 
mentary truth. Along with the language of identity there is other 
language which implies distinction. 

It is not only that,the Spirit of God is related to God in the 
same sort of way in which the spirit of man is related to the man. 
In this very chapter the Holy Spirit is represented as standing over 
against the Father and pleading with Him (Rom. viii. 26f.), and 
a number of other actions which we should call ‘ personal’ are 
ascribed to Him—‘dwelling’ (vv. 9, 11), ‘leading’ (ver. 14), 
‘witnessing ’ (ver. 16), ‘assisting’ (ver. 26). In the last verse of 
2 Corinthians St. Paul distinctly co-ordinates the Holy Spirit with 
the Father and the Son. And even where St. John speaks of the 
Son as coming again in the Spirit, it is not as the same but as 
‘other’; ‘another Paraclete will He give you’ (St. John xiv. 16). 
The language of identity is only partial, and is confined within 
strict limits. Nowhere does St. Paul give the name of ‘ Spirit’ to 
Him who died upon the Cross, and rose again, and will return 
once more to judgement. There is a method running through the 
language of both Apostles, 

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is really an extension, 
a natural if not necessary consequence, of the doctrine of the 
Incarnation. As soon as it came to be clearly realized that the 
Son of God had walked the earth as an individual man among 
men it was inevitable that there should be recognized a dis- 
tinction, and such a distinction as in human language could only 
be described as ‘personal’ in the Godhead. But if there was 
a twofold distinction, then it was wholly in accordance with the 
body of ideas derived from the O. T. to say also a threefold 
distinction. 

It is interesting to observe that in the presentation of this last 
step in the doctrine there is a difference between St. Paul and 
St. John corresponding to a difference in the experience of the 


VIII. 12-16.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 201 


two Apostles. In both cases it is this actual experience which 
gives the standpoint from which they write. St. John, who had 
heard and seen and handled the Word of Life, who had stood 
beneath the cross and looked into the empty tomb, when he 
thinks of the coming of the Paraclete naturally thinks of Him 
as ‘another Paraclete.’ St. Paul, who had not had the same 
privileges, but who was conscious that from the moment of his 
visior upon the road to Damascus a new force had entered into 
his soul, as naturally connects the force and the vision, and sees in 
what he feels to be the work of the Spirit the work also of the 
exalted Son. To St. John the first visible Paraclete and the 
second invisible could not but be different; to St. Paul the in- 
visible influence which wrought so powerfully in him seemed to 
stream directly from the presence of Him whom he had heard 
frova heaven call him by his name. 


SONSHIP AND HEIRSHIP. 


VIII. 12-17. Live then as men bound for such a destiny, 
ascetics as to your worldly life, heirs of immortality. The 
Spirit implanted and confirms in you the consciousness of 
your inheritance. It tells you that you are in a special sense 
sons of God, and that you must some day share the glory to 
which Christ, your Elder Brother, has gone. 


Such a destiny has its obligations. To the flesh you owe 
nothing. “If you live as it would have you, you must inevitably 
die. But if by the help of the Spirit you sternly put an end to 
the licence of the fiesh, then in the fullest sense you will live. 

“Why so? Why that necessary consequence? The link is 
here. All who follow the leading of God’s Spirit are certainly by 
that very fact special objects of His favour. They do indeed enjoy 
the highest title and the highest privileges. They are His sons. 

%* When you were first baptized, and the communication of the 
Holy Spirit sealed your admission into the Christian fold, the 
energies which He imparted were surely not those of a slave. 
You had not once more to tremble under the lash of the Law. 
No: He gave you rather the proud inspiring consciousness of 
men admitted into His family, adopted as His sons. And the 
consciousness of that relation unlocks our lips in tender filial 
appeal to God as our Father. “Two voices are distinctly heard: 


202 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [ VIII. 12-15. 


one we know to be that of the Holy Spirit; the other is the voice 
of our own consciousness. And both bear witness to the same 
fact that we are children of God. ™ But to be a child implies 
something more. The child will one day inherit his father’s 
possessions. So the Christian will one day enter upon that 
glorious inheritance which his Heavenly Father has in store for 
him and on which Christ as his Elder Brother has already entered. 
Only, be it remembered, that in order to share in the glory, it is 
necessary first to share in the sufferings which lead to it. 


12. Lipsius would unite vv. 12, 13 closely with the foregoing; 
and no doubt it is true that these verses only contain the 
conclusion of the previous paragraph thrown into a hortatory 
form, Still it is usual to mark this transition to exhortation by 
a new paragraph (as at vi. 12); and although a new idea (that 
of heirship) is introduced at ver. 14, that idea is only subor- 
dinate to the main argument, the assurance which the Spirit gives 
of future life. See also the note on odv in x. 14. 

13. mveduatt. The antithesis to capé seems to show that this 
is still, as in vv. 4, 5, 9, the human mvedya, but it is the human 
mvevpa in direct contact with the Divine. 

tas mpdées: of wicked doings, as in Luke xxiii. 51. 

14. The phrases which occur in this section, Mvedpars cod 
dyovra, 7d Tvedpa ovpyaptupet to mvevpart nuav, are clear proof that 
the other group of phrases ev mvevpare elvat, OF 7d vedpa oixel (évorxei) 
€v nuiv are not intended in any way to impair the essential distinct- 
ness and independence of the human personality, There is no 
such Divine ‘immanence’ as would obliterate this. The analogy 
to be kept in view is the personal influence of one human being 
upon another. We know to what heights this may rise. The 
Divine influence may be still more subtle and penetrative, but it is 
not different in kind. 

viot Geod. The difference between vids and réxvoy appears to be 
that whereas réxvoy denotes the natural relationship of child to 
parent, vids implies, in addition to this, the recognized sfafus and 
legal privileges reserved for sons. Cf. Westcott on St. John i. 12 
and the parallels there noted. 

15. mvedpa Soudeias. This is another subtle variation in the 
use of mvedya. From meaning the human spirit under the in- 
fluence of the Divine Spirit mveijpa comes to mean a particular 
state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself 
(xvedpa (nrooews Num. v. 14, 30; mv. axndias Is, lxi. 3; mv. mopveias 
Hos. iv. 12), but more often as due to supernatural influence, good 
or evil (mv, codias x.1.A. Is. xi. 2; mv. mravnoews Is, xix. 14; 7H 
kpiceos Is. xxviii. 6; mv. xaravigews Is. xxix. 10 (= Rom. xi. 8); 


VIII. 15-17.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 203 


mv. xdptros at otktipyov Zech. xii. 103; mv, acbevetas Luke xiii. 113 
nv. deidias 2 Tim. i. 7; 1d av. THs mAdvns 1 Jo. iv. 6). So here 
my, Soveias = such a spirit as accompanies a state of slavery, such 
a servile habit as the human wveidpa assumes among slaves. This 
was not the temper which you had imparted to you at your bap- 
tism (eAdBere). The slavery is that of the Law: cf. Gal. iv. 6, 7, 
24, V. I. 

awddwv eis pdBov: ‘so as to relapse into a state of fear.’ The 
candidate for baptism did not emerge from the terrors of the 
Law only to be thrown back into them again. 

uioPeoias: a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical 
phrase vids ridecOat (Gerds vids). It seems however too much to 
say with Gif. that the coinage was probably due to St. Paul him- 
self. ‘No word is more common in Greek inscriptions of the 
Hellenistic time: the idea, like the word, is native Greek’ (E. L. 
Hicks in Studia Biblica, iv. 8). This doubtless points to the 
quarter from which St. Paul derived the word, as the Jews had 
not the practice of adoption. 

*ABBG, 6 warnp. The repetition of this word, first in Aramaic 
and then in Greek, is remarkable and brings home to us the fact 
that Christianity had its birth in a bilingual people. The same 
repetition occurs in Mark xiv. 36 (‘ Abba, Father, all things are 
possible to Thee’) and in Gal. iv. 6: it gives a greater intensity of 
expression, but would only be natural where the speaker was 
using in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfoot (Hor. Hed. on 
Mark xiv. 36) thinks that in the Gospel the word ’ABfa only was 
used by our Lord and 6 Marnp added as an interpretation by 
St. Mark, and that in like manner St. Paul is interpreting for the 
benefit of his readers. The three passages are however all too 
emotional for this explanation: interpretation is out of place in 
a prayer. It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself, 
using familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word 
of all words such a depth of meaning, found Himself impelled 
spontaneously to repeat the word, and that some among His 
disciples caught and transmitted the same habit. It is significant 
however of the limited extent of strictly Jewish Christianity that 
we find no other original examples of the use than these three. 

16. atré 76 Mveiua: see on ver. 14 above. 

guppaptupet; cf. ii. 15; ix. 2. There the ‘joint-witness’ was 
the subjective testimony of conscience, confirming the objective 
testimony of a man’s works or actions; here consciousness is _ 
analyzed, and its dafa are referred partly to the man himself, partly 
to the Spirit of God moving and prompting him. 

17. KAnpovépor. The idea of a «Anpovopia is taken up and 
developed in N.T. from O.T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Ps. Sol., 
4 Ezr.). It is also prominent in Philo, who devotes a whole 


204 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VIII.18,10, 


treatise to the question Quts rerum divinarum heres sit? (Mang. i. 
473 ff.). Meaning originally (i) the simple possession of the Holy 
Land, it came to mean (ii) its permanent and assured possession 
(Ps. xxv [xxiv]. 13; xxxvi [xxxvii]. 9, 11 &c.); hence (iii) 
specially the secure possession won by the Messiah (Is. Ix. 21; 
Ixi. 7; and so it became (iv) a symbol of all Messianic blessings 
(Matt. v. 5; xix. 29; xxv. 34, &c.). Philo, after his manner, 
makes the word denote the bliss of the soul when freed from the 
body. 
It is an instance of the unaccountable inequalities of usage that whereas 
«Anpovopetv, kAnpovoyia occur almost innumerable times in LXX, #Anpovépos 
occurs only five times (once in Symmachus); in N.T. there is much greate1 
equality («Anpovoyeiy eighteen, «Anpovoyia fourteen, «Anpovéyos fifteen). 
ouykAnpovsnor. Our Lord had described Himself as ‘the Heir’ 
in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 38). This 
would show that the idea of xAnpovoyia received its full Christian 
adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matt. xxv. 34). 

eimep oupmdoxouev. St. Paul seems here to be reminding his 
hearers of a current Christian saying: cf. 2 Tim. ii, 11 mords 6 
Adyos, Ei yap cuvarebdvopev cai cutjcopev* trouevowev Kai oupSace- 
Aetoouev, This is another instance of the Biblical conception of 
Christ as the Way (His Life not merely an example for ours, but 
in its main lines presenting a fixed type or law to which the lives 
of Christians must conform); cf. p. 196 above, and Dr. Hort’s 
The Way, the Truth, and the Life there referred to. For etmep see 
on iii. 30. 


SUFFERING THE PATH TO GLORY. 


VIII. 18-25. What though the path to that glory lies 
through suffering? The suffering and the glory alike are 
parts of a great cosmical movement, in which the irrational 
creation joins with man. As it shared the results of his 
Jall, so also will it share in his redemption. Its pangs are 
pangs of a new birth (vv. 18-22). 

Like the mute creation, we Christians too wait painfully 
for our deliverance. Our attitude is one of hope and not of 
possession (VV. 23-25). 

%8 What of that? For the sufferings which we have to undergo 
in this phase of our career I count not worth a thought in view 
of that dazzling splendour which will one day break through 
the clouds and dawn upon us. * For the sons of God will stand 
forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for 


VIIL. 18.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 205 


that consummation not they alone but the whole irrational creation, 
both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing; like 
Spectators straining forward over the ropes to catch the first 
glimpse of some triumphal pageant. 

*° The future and not the present must satisfy its aspirations 
For ages ago Creation was condemned to have its energies marred 
and frustrated. And that by no act of its own: it was God who 
fixed this doom upon it, but with the hope * that as it had been 
enthralled to death and decay by the Fall of Man so too the 
Creation shall share in the free and glorious existence of God’s 
emancipated children. *™It is like the pangs of a woman in child- 
birth. This universal frame feels up to this moment the throes of 
travail—feels them in every part and cries out in its pain. But 
where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth. 

**OQur own experience points to the same conclusion. True 
that in those workings of the Spirit, the charzsmata with which we 
are endowed, we Christians already possess a foretaste of good 
things to come. But that very foretaste makes us long—anxiously 
and painfully long—for the final recognition of our Sonship. We 
desire to see these bodies of ours delivered from the evils that 
beset them and transfigured into glory. 

“Hope is the Christian’s proper attitude. We were saved 
indeed, the groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became 
Christians. But was that salvation in possession or in prospect? 
Certainly in prospect. Otherwise there would be no room for 
hope. For what a man sees already in his hand he does not hope 
for as if it were future. * But in our case we do not see, and we 
do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast 
fortitude. 


18. AoyiZopat ydp. At the end of the last paragraph St. Paul 
has been led to speak of the exalted privileges of Christians in- 
volved in the fact that they are sons of God. The thought of these 
privileges suddenly recalls to him the contrast of the sufferings 
through which they are passing. And after his manner he does 
not let go this idea of ‘suffering’ but works it into his main 
argument. He first dismisses the thought that the present suffer- 
ing can be any real counter-weight to the future glory; and then 
he shows that not only is it not this, but that on the contrary it 
actually points forward to that glory. It does this on the grandest 


206 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIIL 18, 19. 


scale. In fact it is nothing short of an universal law that suffering 
marks the road to glory. All the suffering, all the imperfection, 
all the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so 
abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but point forward 
to a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection be re- 
moved and the frustrated aspirations at last crowned and satisfied ; 
and this time coincides with the glorious consummation which 
awaits the Christian. 

True it is that there goes up as it were an universal groan, from 
creation, from ourselves, from the Holy Spirit who sympathizes 
with us; but this groaning is but the travail-pangs of the new 
birth, the entrance upon their glorified condition of the risen sons 
of God. 

hoyiLouar: here in its strict sense, ‘I calculate,’ ‘weigh mentally,’ 
‘count up on the one side and on the other.’ 

afia...mpds. In Plato, Gorg. p. 471 E, we have ovdevds abids éors 
mpos thy adnOeav: so that with a slight ellipse ot« dfa... mpos Thy 
d6€av will = ‘not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory.’ 
Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (1) ov« 
a€ia ris ddéns, i.e. ‘not an equivalent for the glory’; comp. Prov. 
Vili. In may 8€ Timor ove dfvov adris (Sc. Tis copias) éoriv, and (2) 
ovdevds Adyou afia mpds thy SdEav: comp. Jer. xxiii. 28 ri rd ayvpov 
mpos Tov trop 5 

The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra vii. 3 ff. Compare (e.g.) the 
following (vv. 12-17): Zt facté sunt introttus huius saeculi angustt et 
dolentes et laboriost, pauct autem et malt et periculorum plent et labore 
magno opere fulti; nam maioris saeculi introitus spatiost et securi et 
facientes immortalitatis fructum. Si ergo non ingredtentes ingresst fuerint- 
gue vivunt angusta et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reposila... 
tusti autem ferent angusta sperantes spatiosa. Compare also the quotations 


from the Talmud in Delitzsch ad /oc. The question is asked, What is the 
way to the world tocome? And the answer is, Through suffering. 


pAXoucay: emphatic, ‘is destined to,’ ‘is certain to.” The 
position of the word is the same as in Gal. iii- 23, and serves to 
point the contrast to rod viv caipod. 
Sééav: the heavenly brightness of Christ’s appearing: see on 
iii. 23. 
ets Has: to reach and include us in its radiance, 
19. Gwoxapadoxia: cf. Phil. i. 20 xara tiv amoxapadoxiay Kal edmida 
pov: the verb dmoxapadoxeiv occurs in Aquila’s version of Ps. xxxvii 
xxxvi]. 7, and the subst. frequently in Polyb. and Plutarch (see 
rm.-Thay. s.v., and Ell. Lft. on Phil. i. 20). A highly expressive 
word ‘to strain forward,’ lit. ‘ await with outstretched head.’ ‘This 
sense is still further strengthened by the compound, amo- denoting 
diversion from other things and concentration on a single object. 


This passage (especially vv. 17, 22) played a considerable part in the 
system of Basilides, as described in Hippol. Ref. Omn. Haer. vii. 25-27. 


VIII. 19.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 207 


Tis KtTloews: see on i. 20. Here the sense is given by the 
context ; 7 «riow is set in contrast with the ‘sons of God,’ and 
from the allusion to the Fall which follows evidently refers to Gen. 
iii. 17, 18 ‘Cursed is the ground for thy sake... thorns also and 
thistles shall it bring forth to thee.’ The commentators however 
are not wrong in making the word include here the whole irrational 
creation. The poetic and penetrating imagination of St. Paul 
sees in the marks of imperfection on the face of nature, in the 
signs at once of high capacities and poor achievement, the visible 
and audible expression of a sense of something wanting which will 
one day be supplied. 

Oltr. and some others argue strenuously, but in vain, for giving 
to kriow, throughout the whole of this passage, the sense not of the 
world of nature, but of the world of man (similarly Orig.). He 
tries to get rid of the poetic personification of nature and to 
dissociate St. Paul from Jewish doctrine as to the origin of death 
and decay in nature, and as to its removal at the coming of the 
Messiah. But (i) there is no sufficient warrant for limiting «rious 
to humanity; (ii) it is necessary to deny the sufficiently obvious 
reference to Gen. iii. 17-19 (where, though the ‘ ground’ or ‘soil’ 
only is mentioned, it is the earth’s surface as the seed-plot of life) ; 
(iii) the Apostle is rather taken out of the mental surroundings 
in which he moved than placed in them: see below on ‘The 
Renovation of Nature.’ 


The ancients generally take the passage as above (# «riots 1) dAoyos 
expressly Euthym.-Zig). Orig.-lat., as expressly, has creaturam wtpote 
rationabilem; but he is quite at fault, making 77 paradryT = ‘the body.’ 
Chrys. and Euthym.-Zig. call attention to the personification of Nature, 
which they compare to that in the Psalms and Prophets, while Diodorus of 
Tarsus refers the expressions implying life rather to the Powers (éuvdpets) 
which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The 
sense commonly given to patatérn7s is = p0opa. 


Thy Groxddupw tay ulav tod Oeov, The same word amoxddvyes is 
applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an 
éxupaveia 2 Thess. ii. 8) and to that of the redeemed who accompany 
Him: their new existence will not be like the present, but will be 
in ‘glory’ (8d£a) both reflected and imparted. This revealing of 
the sons of God will be the signal for the great transformation. 


The Jewish writings use similar language. To them also the appearing of 
the Messiah is an dmoxadvys: 4 Ezra xiii. 32 et erit cum fient hacc, et con- 
tingent signa quae ante ostend tibi et tunc revelabitur filius meus quem 
widisti ut virum ascendentem; Apoc. Bar. xxxix.7 et erit, cum appropinqua- 
werit tempus finis eius ut cadat, tunc revelabitur principatus Messtae met qui 
stmiles est fonté et vitt, et oum revelatus fuerit eradicabet multitudinem con- 
gregationis etus (the Latin of this book, it will be remembered, is Ceriani’s 
version from the Syriac, and not ancient like that of 4 Ezra). The object of 
the Messiah’s appearing is the same as with St. Paul, to deliver creation 
from its ills; 4 Hzra xiil. 26, 29 cpse est quem conservat Altissimss multés 


208 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIIL 19-22. 


temporibus qui per semetip~sum liberabit creaturam suam et ipse disponet 
gui derelict: sunt... ecce dies veniunt, quando incipiet Altissimus liberare 
cos qui super terram sunt: Apoc. Bar. xxxii.6 guando futurum est ut Fortis 
tnnovet creaturam suam (= 4 Ezra vii. 75 [Bensly] donec veniant tempora 
illa, in quibus incipies creaturam renovare). The Messiah does not come 
alone: 4 Ezra xiii. 51 mom poterit quisque super lerram videre filium meum 
wel cos qui cum co sunt nisi in tempore diet. He collects round Him 
a double multitude, consisting partly of the ten tribes who had been carried 
away into captivity, and partly of those who were left in the Holy Land 
(thd. vv. 12, 39 ff., 48 £). 


Gmexdéxetar: another strong compound, where dze- contains the 
same idea of ‘ concentrated waiting’ as in droxapadoxia above. 

20. TH...patatéryte: paradrns pataworjroy is the refrain of the 
Book of Ecclesiastes (Eccl. i. 2, &c.; cf. Ps, xxxix. 5, 11 [xxxviii. 6, 
12] cxliv (cxliii]. 4): that is zéraov which is ‘ without result’ (uarqy), 
‘ineffective,’ ‘which does not reach its end’—the opposite of 
rékeos: the word is therefore appropriately used of the disappointing 
character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection 
of which it is capable. 

émetdyn: by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Gen. 
iii, 17-19). 

obx éxoica: not through its own fault, but through the fault of 
man, i.e. the Fall. 

814 tov Gwordgayta: ‘by reason of Him who subjected it,’ ie. not 
man in general (Lips.); nor Adam (Chrys. a@/.); nor the Devil 
(Go.), but (with most commentators, ancient as well as modern) 
God, by the sentence pronounced after the Fall. It is no argument 
against this reference that the use of 8d with acc. in such a con- 
nexion is rather unusual (so Lips.). 

ém didi qualifies imerdyn, Creation was made subject to 
vanity—not simply and absolutely and there an end, but ‘in hope 
that,’ &c. Whatever the defects and degradation of nature, it was 
at least left with the hope of rising to the ideal intended for it. 

21. 6. The majority of recent commentators make érs (= ‘that’) 
define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not (= ‘ be- 
cause’) give a reason for it. The meaning in any case is much 
the same, but this is the simpler way to arrive at it. 

kal ait} 4 Ktiots: not only Christians but even the mute creation 
with them. 

dnd THs Soudelas tis POopas. Sovdcias corresponds to tmerdyn, the 
state of subjection or thraldom to dissolution and decay. The 
opposite to this is the full and free development of all the powers 
which attends the state of dé&. ‘Glorious liberty’ is a poor 
translation and does not express the idea: 8d€a, ‘ the glorified state,’ 
is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and ¢eAevdepia is its 
characteristic, ‘the liberty of the glory of the children of God.’ 

22. oidapey ydp introduces a fact of common knowledge (though 


VIII. 22-24.]_ LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 209 


the apprehension of it may not have been so common as he 
assumes) to which the Apostle appeals. 

ouctevdte: kal cuvwdiver. It seems on the whole best to take the 
ovy- in both instances as = ‘together,’ i.e. in all the parts of which 
creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly: BovAera 6é. 
eimev Ort cuphaves emdeikvuTat TovTO aca 7H KTiots’ va TO Tapa ado7NSs . 
TO se yéverOar Gpuoiws, maidevon TovTovs THY mpos Gmavtas KoWwaviay 
aipcioOa ty TSv AvTnpav Kaprepia). ltr. gets out of it the sense of 
‘inwardly ’ (= ey éavrois), which it will not bear: Fri. Lips. and 
others, after Euthym.-Zig. make it = ‘w#h men’ or ‘with the 
children of God’; but if these had been pointed to, there would 
not be so clear an opposition as there is at the beginning of the 
next verse (od pdvov dé, d\da cai airoi), The two verses must be 
kept apart. 

23. od pévov 8é. Not only does nature groan, but we Christians 
also groan: our very privileges make us long for something more. 

Thy arapxhvy rod Mvedpatos: ‘the first-fruits, or first instalment 
of the gift of the Spirit’ St. Paul evidently means all the 
phenomena of that great outpouring which was specially charac- 
teristic of the Apostolic Age from the Day of Pentecost onwards, 
the varied chartsmafa bestowed upon the first Christians (1 Cor. 
xii. &c.), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were 
more permanent (Gal. v. 22f.). The possession of these gifts 
served to quicken the sense of the yet greater gifts that were to 
come. Foremost among them was to be the transforming of the 
earthly or ‘ psychical’ body into a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44 ff.). 
St. Paul calls this a ‘deliverance,’ i.e. a deliverance from the ‘ills 
that flesh is heir to’: for dwodvrpwors see on iii, 24. 


€xovres fpets: #yeis is placed here by NAC 5. 47. 80, also by Tisch. 
RV. and (in brackets) by WH. 


viofectay: see on ver. 15 above. Here vio, = the manifested, 
realized, act of adoption—its public promulgation. 

24. th yap ednid. éodPnuev. The older commentators for the 
most part (not however Luther Beng. Fri.) took the dat. here as 
dative of the instrument, ‘ by hope were we saved.’ Most moderns 
(including Gif. Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as daz. modz, ‘in hope 
were we saved ;’ the main ground being that it is more in accord- 
ance with the teaching of St. Paul to say that we were saved dy 
faith, or from another point of view—looking at salvation from the 
side of God—dy grace (both terms are found in Eph. ii. 8) than dy 
hope. This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here 
only an aspect of Faith: and it is quite true that the definition of 
Faith in Heb. xi. 1 (ors 8€ miotes éAmiCoperwv imdotacis, mpaypaTos 
Aeyxos ov Bderopevav), makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But 
that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb. 


210 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIIL. 24, 26. 


and St. Paul. In Heb. Faith is used somewhat vaguely of belief 
in God and in the fulfilment of His promises. In St. Paul it is far 
more often Faith im Christ, the first act of accepting Christianity 
(see p. 33 above). This belongs essentially to the past, and to the 
present as growing directly out of the past; but when St. Paul 
comes to speak of the future he uses another term, «Amis. No 
doubt when we come to trace this to its origin it has its root in the 
strong conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus and its consequénces ; 
but the two terms are not therefore identical, and it is best to 
keep them distinct. 

Some recent Germans (Holsten, Weiss, Lips.) take the dat. as 
dativus commodt, ‘for hope were we saved.’ But this is less 
natural. To obtain this sense we should have to personify Hope 
more strongly than the context will bear. Besides Hope is an 
attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not its end, 

edmis S€ Bheropevyn: €Amis here = ‘the thing hoped for,’ just as 
kriois = ‘the thing created’; a very common usage. 


& ydp BAéra, rls EAnlLa; This terse reading is found only in B 47 marg., 
which adds 70 madadv obras éxe: it is adopted by RV. text, WH. text. 
Text. Recept. has [8 ydp BAéwer tis] ri Kal (antec of which 7é alone is 
found in Wester authorities (DFG, Vulg. Pesh. @/.), and «ai alone in 
N*47*. Both RV. and WH. give a place in the margin to ri wai éAmifes 
and ri eal tmopevea [bmopeve: with N* A 47 marg.]. 


25. The point of these two verses is that the attitude of hope, 
so distinctive of the Christian, implies that there is more in store 
for him than anything that is his already. 

SU Stopevis: constancy and fortitude under persecution, &c., 
pointing back to the ‘ sufferings’ of ver. 18 (cf. on ii. 7; v. 4; and 
for the use of di: ii. 27). 


The Renovation of Nature. 


We have already quoted illustrations of St. Paul’s language from 
some of the Jewish writings which are nearest to his own in point 
of time. They are only samples of the great mass of Jewish 
literature. To all of it this idea of a renovation of Nature, the 
creation of new heavens and a new earth is common, as part of the 
Messianic expectation which was fulfilled unawares to many of 
those by whom it was entertained. ‘The days of the Messiah were 
to be the ‘seasons of refreshing,’ the ‘times of restoration of all 
things,’ which were to come from the face of the Lord (Acts iii. 19, 
21). The expectation had its roots in the O.T., especially in 
those chapters of the Second Part of Isaiah in which the approach- 
ing Return from Captivity opens up to the prophet such splendid 
visions for the future. The one section Is. lxv. 1725 might well 


VIII. 18-25.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT atx 


be held to warrant most of the statements in the Apocrypha and 
Talmud. 

The idea of the ‘new heavens and new earth’ is based directly 
upon Is. Ixv. 47, and is found clearly stated in the Book of Enoch, 
xlv. 4f. ‘I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal 
blessing and light. And I will transform the earth and make it 
a blessing and cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it’ (where see 
Charles’ note). There is also an application of Ps. cxiv. 4, with 
an added feature which illustrates exactly St. Paul’s dmoxdduyus rav 
vidy tov Geodv: ‘In those days will the mountains leap like rams 
and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and they will 
all become angels in heaven. Their faces will be lighted up 
with joy, because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the 
earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it, and the elect 
will go to and fro upon it’ (Zvoch li. 4f.). We have given 
parallels enough from 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 
there is much in the Talmud to the same effect (cf. Weber, Adtsyn. 
Theol. p. 380 ff.3 Schiirer, Weutest. Zetigesch. ii. 453 ff, 458 f.; 
Edersheim, Zzfe and Times, &c. ii. 438). 

It is not surprising to find the poetry of the prophetic writings 
hardened into fact by Jewish literalism; but it is strange when the 
products of this mode of interpretation are attributed to our Lord 
Himself on authority no less ancient than that of Papias of Hiera- 
polis, professedly drawing from the tradition of St. John. Yet 
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V. xxxiii. 3) quotes in such terms the follow- 
ing: ‘ The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having 
ten thousand shoots and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and 
on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten 
thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and 
each grape when pressed shall yield five and twenty measures of 
wine... Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand 
heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every 
grain ten pounds of fine flour, bright and clean; and the other 
fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and 
all the animals using these fruits which are products of the soil, 
shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious.’ It happens 
that this saying, or at least part of it, is actually extant in Ajoc. 
Bar. xxix. 5 (cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 620-623, 744 ff.), so that it 
clearly comes from some Jewish source. In view of an instance 
like this it seems possible that even in the N. T. our Lord’s words 
may have been defined in a sense which was not exactly that 
originally intended owing to the current expectation which the dis- 
ciples largely shared. 

And yet on the whole, even if this expectation was by the Jews 
to some extent literalized and materialized, some of its essential 
features were preserved. Corresponding to the new abode pre- 


212 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VIII. 26, 27. 


pared for it there was to be a renewed humanity: and that not 
only in a physical sense based on Is. xxxv. 5 f. (‘ Then the eyes of 
the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be un- 
stopped,’ &c.), but also in a moral sense; the root of evil was to be 
plucked out of the hearts of men and a new heart was to be im- 
planted in them: the Spirit of God was to rest upon them (Weber, 
Altsyn. Theol. p. 382). There was to be no unrighteousness in 
their midst, for they were all to be holy (Ps. Sol. xvii. 28 f., 36, 
&c.). The Messiah was to rule over the nations, but not merely by 
force ; Israel was to be a true light to the Gentiles (Schiirer, of. «t#. 
Pp: 456). 

If - compare these Jewish beliefs with what we find here in the 
Epistle to the Romans there are two ways in which the superiority 
of the Apostle is most striking. (1) There runs through his words 
an intense sympathy with nature in and for itself. He is one of 
those (like St. Francis of Assisi) to whom it is given to read as it 
were the thoughts of plants and animals. He seems to lay his ear 
to the earth and the confused murmur which he hears has a meaning 
for him: it is creation’s yearning for that happier state intended for 
it and of which it has been defrauded. (2) The main idea is not, 
as it is so apt to be with the Rabbinical writers, the mere glorifica- 
tion of Israel. By them the Gentiles are differently treated. 
Sometimes it is their boast that the Holy Land will be reserved 
exclusively for Israel: ‘the sojourner and the stranger shall dwell 
with them no more’ (Ps. Sol. xvii. 31). The only place for the 
Gentiles is ‘ to serve him beneath the yoke’ (zdzd. ver. 32). The 
vision of the Gentiles streaming to Jerusalem as a centre of religion 
is exceptional, as it must be confessed that it is also in O.T. 
Prophecy. On the other hand, with St. Paul the movement is 
truly cosmic. The ‘sons of God’ are not selected for their own 
sakes alone, but their redemption means the redemption of a world 
of being besides themselves. 


THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SPIRIT. 


VIII. 26, 27. Meanwhile the Holy Spirit itself assists tn 
our prayers. 


* Nor are we alone in our struggles. The Holy Spirit sup- 
ports our helplessness. Left to ourselves we do not know what 
prayers to offer or how to offer them. But in those inarticulate 
groans which rise from the depths of our being, we recognize the 
voice of none other than the Holy Spirit. He makes intercession ; 


VIII. 26.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 213 


and His intercession is sure to be answered. * For God Who 
searches the inmost recesses of the heart can interpret His own 
Spiit’s meaning. He knows that His own Will regulates Its 
petitions, and that they are offered for men dedicated to His service. 


26. dcattws. As we groan, so also does the Holy Spirit groan 
with us, putting a meaning into our aspirations which they would 
not have of themselves. All alike converges upon that ‘ Divine 
event, to which the whole creation moves.’ ‘This view of the 
connexion (Go., Weiss, Lips.), which weaves in this verse with 
the broad course of the Apostle’s argument, seems on the whole 
better than that which attaches it more closely to the words im- 
mediately preceding, ‘as hope sustains us so also does the Spirit 
sustain us’ (Mey. Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou.). 

ouvaytihopBdvetar: dvti\apBaverOac =‘to take hold of at the 
side (dvri), so as to support’; and this sense is further strength- 
ened by the idea of association contained in ow-. The same 
compound occurs in LXX of Ps. Ixxxviii [Ixxxix]. 22, and in 
Luke x. 40. 

TH doGeveta: decisively attested for rais doGevetas. On the way in 
which we are taking the verse the reference will be to the vague- 
ness and defectiveness of our prayers; on the other view to our 
weakness under suffering implied in &’ tmoporjs. But as imouowy 
suggests rather a certain amount of victorious resistance, this appli- 
cation of do@cvea seems less appropriate. 

7d yap ti mpocevéducOa. The art. makes the whole clause object 
of oidayev. Gif. notes that this construction is characteristic of 
St. Paul and St. Luke (in the latter ten times; in the former Rom. 
xiii. g; Gal. v. 14; Eph. iv. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 1). ri mpocevé. is 
strictly rather, ‘What we ought to pray’ than ‘what we ought to 
pray for,’ i.e. ‘how we are to word our prayers,’ not ‘ what we are 
to choose as the objects of prayer.’ But as the object determines 
the nature of the prayer, in the end the meaning is much the 
same. 

xa0é Set. It is perhaps a refinement to take this as = ‘ accord- 
ing to, in proportion to, our need’ (Mey.-W. Gif.) ; which brings out 
the proper force of xaéé (cf. Baruch i. 6 v.1.) at the cost of putting 
a sense upon éeci which is not found elsewhere in the N. T., where 
it always denotes obligation or objective necessity. Those of the 
Fathers who show how they took it make xa0d dei = riva tpdrov 
dei mpocevg., which also answers well to xara Gedy in the next 
verse. 

Swepevtuyydver: €vrvyydve means originally ‘to fall in with,’ and 
hence ‘to accost with entreaty,’ and so simply ‘to entreat’; in this 
sense it is not uncommon and occurs twice in this Epistle (viii. 34 ; 
xi. 2). The verse contains a statement which the unready of 


214 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII 26-29. 


speech may well lay to heart, that all prayer need not be formu- 
lated, but that the most inarticulate desires (springing from a right 
motive) may have a shape and a value given to them beyond 
anything that is present and definable to the consciousness. This 
verse and the next go to show that St. Paul regarded the action of 
the Holy Spirit as personal, and as distinct from the action of the 
Father. The language of the Creeds aims at taking account of 
these expressions, which agree fully with the triple formula of 
2 Cor. xiii. 14; Matt. xxviii. 19. Oltr. however makes ré mvedpua in 
both verses = ‘the human spirit,’ against the natural sense of 
brepevrvyxaver and inép dyiwv, which place the object of intercession 
outside the Spirit itself, and against xara Gedy, which would be by 
no means always true of the human spirit. 


imepevtvyxave is decisively attested (N*ABDFG &c). Text. Recept. 
has the easier évtuyxave inétp Huey. 


27. 6m. Are we to translate this ‘ because’ (Weiss Go. Gif. Va.) 
or ‘that’ (Mey. Oltr. Lips. Mou.)? Probably the latter; for if we 
take ér as assigning a reason for oide ri rd ppdvqua, the reason would 
not be adequate: God would still ‘know’ the mind, or intention, 
of the Spirit even if we could conceive it as not xara Gedy and 
NOt tmép dyiwv. It seems best therefore to make drs describe the 
nature of the Spirit’s intercession. 

kata Oedv = kara Td Ochna tod Ccod: cf. 2 Cor. vii. 9-11. 


The Jews had a strong belief in the value of the intercessory prayer 
their great saints, such as Moses (Ass. Moys. xi. 11, 17; xii. 6), Jeremiah 
(Apoc. Bar. ii. 2): cf. Weber, p. 287 ff. But they have nothing like the 
teaching of these verses 


THE ASCENDING PROCESS OF SALVATION, 


VIII. 28-80. With what a chain of Providential care 
does God accompany the course of His chosen! In eternity, 
the plan laid and their part in it foreseen; in time, first 
their call, then their acquittal, and finally their reception 
into glory. 

* Yet another ground of confidence. The Christian knows that 
all things (including his sufferings) can have but one result, and 
that a good one, for those who love God and respond to the call 
which in the pursuance of His purpose He addresses to them. 
* Think what a long perspective of Divine care and protection lies 
before them! First, in eternity, God marked them for His own, 
as special objects of His care and instruments of His purpose. 


VIII. 28.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 215 


Then, in the same eternity, He planned that they should share in 
the glorified celestial being of the Incarnate Son—in order that 
He, as Eldest Born, might gather round Him a whole family of 
the redeemed. ‘°° Then in due course, to those for whom He had 
in store this destiny He addressed the call to leave their worldly 
lives and devote themselves to His service. And when they 
obeyed that call He treated them as righteous men, with their 
past no longer reckoned against them. And so accounted righteous 
He let them participate (partially now as they will do more com- 
pletely hereafter) in His Divine perfection. 


28. oiSapev S€ passes on to another ground for looking con- 
fidently to the future. The Christian’s career mus# have a good 
ending, because at every step in it he is in the hands of God and is 
carrying out the Divine purpose. 4 

amdvta cuvepyet: a small but important group of authorities, A B, 
Orig. 2/6 or 2/7 (cf. Boh. Sah. Aeth.), adds 6 Geds; and the inser- 
tion lay so much less near at hand than the omission that it must 
be allowed to have the greater appearance of originality. With 
this reading cuvepyet must be taken transitively, ‘causes all things 
to work.’ 


The Bobairic Version, translated literally and preserving the idioms, is ‘ But 
we know that those who love God, He habitually works with them in every 

ood thing, those whom He has called according to His purpose.’ The Sahidic 
Gosicn (as edited by Amélineau in Zetischrijt fur Aezypt. Sprache, 1887) 
is in part defective but certainly repeats @cds: ‘ But we know that those who 
love God, God... them in every good thing, &c. From this we gather 
that the Version of Upper Egypt inserted 6 Oeds, and that the Version of 
Lower Egypt omitted it but interpreted cuvepye? transitively as if it were 
present. It would almost seem as if there was an exegetical tradition which 
took the word in this way. It is true that the extract from Origen’s Com- 
mentary in the Phz/ocalza (ed. Robinson, p. 226 ff.) not only distinctly and 
tepeatedly presents the common reading but also in one place (p. 229) clearly 
has the common interpretation. But Chrysostom (ad /oc.) argues at some 
length as if he were taking ov: epyef transitively with 6 @e0s for subject. 
Similarly Gennadius (in Cramer's Catena), also Theodoret and Theodorus 
Monachus (preserved in the Catena). It would perhaps be too much to 
claim all these writers as witnesses to the reading cuvepyel 6 @cos, but they 
may point to a tradition which had its origin in that reading and survived it. 
On the other hand it is possible that the reading may have grown out of the 
interpretation. 

For the use of ovvepyef there are two rather close parallels in Zest. XZZ 
Pair.: Issach. 3 6 Geds cuvepyet 7H GaA6TATi pov, and Gad 4 7d ydp mvedpa 
Tov ploous ... cuvepyet TH Sarava év waow eis Gavatov Tov avOpwtav" TO 5s 
mveipa THs ayanns & paxpobupia ouvepyel TP vopw TOV Geod cis cuTHpiav 
ayOpwaav, 


Tots KaTa mpdecw KAnTots ovo. With this clause St. Paul in- 
troduces a string of what may be called the technical terms of his 


216 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VILI. 28. 


theology, marking the succession of stages into which he divides 
the normal course of a Christian life—all being considered not 
from the side of human choice and volition, but from the side of 
Divine care and ordering. This is summed up at the outset in the 
phrase xara rpdéeow, the comprehensive plan or design in accord- 
ance with which God directs the destinies of men. There can be 
no question that St. Paul fully recognizes the freedom of the human 
will. The large part which exhortation plays in his letters is con- 
clusive proof of this. But whatever the extent of human freedom 
there must be behind it the Divine Sovereignty. It is the practice 
of St. Paul to state alternately the one and the other without 
attempting an exact delimitation between them. And what he has 
not done we are not likely to succeed in doing. In the passage 
before us the Divine Sovereignty is in view, not on its terrible but 
on its gracious side. It is the proof how ‘ God worketh all things 
for good to those who love Him.’ We cannot insist too strongly 
upon this; but when we leave the plain declarations of the Apostle 
and begin to draw speculative inferences on the right hand or on 
the left we may easily fall into cross currents which will render any 
such inferences invalid. See further the note on Free-Will and 
Predestination at the end of ch. xi. 

In further characterizing ‘those who love God’ St. Paul na- 
turally strikes the point at which their love became manifest by the 
acceptance of the Divine Call. This call is one link in the chain 
of Providential care which attends them: and it suggests the other 
links which stretch far back into the past and far forward into the 
future. By enumerating these the Apostle completes his proof 
that the love of God never quits His chosen ones. 

The enumeration follows the order of succession in time. 

For zpofeors see on ch. ix. 11 9 Kat exhoynv tpobects Tod Oeoi, 
which would prove, if proof were needed, that the purpose is that 
of God and not of man (xar’ oixeiay mpoaipeow Theoph. and the 
Greek Fathers generally): comp. also Eph. i. 11; iii, 11; 2 Tim. 
1:9: 

It was one of the misfortunes of Greek theology that it received a bias in 
the Free-Will controversy from opposition to the Gnostics (cf. p. 269 zf.) 
which it never afterwards lost, and which seriously prejudiced its exegesis 
wherever this question was concerned. ‘Thus in the present instance, the great 
mass of the Greek commentators take xara mpd0co.w to mean ‘in accordance 

[ with the man’s own zpoaipeois or free act of choice’ (see the extracts in 

Cramer’s Catena ‘e cod. Monac.’; and add Theoph. Oecum. Euthym.-Zig.). 

The two partial exceptions are, as we might expect, Origen and Cyril of 

Alexandria, who however both show traces of the influences current in the 

Eastern Church. Origen also seems inclined to take it of the proposttum 

bonum et bonam voluntatem quam circa Dei cultum gerunt; but he admits 

the alternative that it may refer to the purpose of God. If so, it refers to 
this purpose as determined by His foreknowledge of the characters and 


conduct of men. Cyril of Alexandria asks the question, Whose purpose is 
intended? and decides that it would not be wrong to answer tyv Te Tot 


VIII. 28, 29.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 217 


xexdnkdtos Kat tiv éavrav. He comes to this decision however rather on 
dogmatic than on exegetical grounds. 

It is equally a straining of the text when Augustine distinguishes two kinds 
of call, one secundum propositum, the call of the elect, and the other of those ~ 
who are not elect. Von enim omnes vocati secundum propositum sunt 
vocati: guoniam multi vocati, paucé electi. Ipsi ergo secundum propositum 
vocati gui electt ante constitutionem mundi (Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. ii. 10. 
§ 22, cf. Cont. Julian. v.6,§ 14). In the idea of a double call, Augustine 
seems to have been anticipated by Origen, who however, as we have seen, 
gives a different sense to card mpdOcow: omnes quidem vocati sunt, non tamen 
omnes secundum propositum vocaté sunt (ed. Lomm. vii. 128). 


KAynrois: ‘called,’ implying that the call has been obeyed. The 
kAjots is not au salut (Oltr.), at least in the sense of final salva- 
tion, but simply to become Christians: see oni. 1. 

29, St: certainly here ‘because,’ assigning a reason for mdvta 
auvepyci 6 Geds eis dyaboy, not ‘that’ (= c’est gue Olir.). 

ots mpoeyyw. The meaning of this phrase must be determined 
by the Biblical use of the word ‘ know,’ which is very marked and 
clear: e.g. Ps. i. 6 ‘The Lord knoweth (ytyvooxer) the way of the 
righteous’; cxliv [cxliii]. 3 ‘Lord, what is man that Thou takest 
knowledge of him (ért eyraoOns aire LXX)? Or the son of man 
that Thou makest account of him?’ Hos. xiii. 5 ‘I did know 
(eroiuawov) thee in the wilderness.’ Am. iii. 2 ‘You only have 
I known (@yor) of all the families of the éarth.’ Matt. vii. 23 
‘Then will I profess unto them I never knew (€yvov) you,’ &c. 
In all these places the word means ‘to take note of,’ ‘to fix the 
regard upon,’ as a preliminary to selection for some especial pur- 
pose. The compound zpoéyyw only throws back this ‘taking 
note’ from the historic act in time to the eternal counsel which 
it expresses and executes. 


This interpretation (which is very similar to that of Godet and which 
approaches, though it is not exactly identical with, that of a number of older 
commentators, who make mpo¢yvw = praediligere, approbare) has the double 
advantage of being strictly conformed to Biblical usage and of reading 
nothing into the word which we are not sure is there. This latter objection 
applies to most other ways of taking the passage: e.g. to Origen’s, when he 
makes the foreknowledge a foreknowledge of character and fitness, poava- 
tevicas ovy 6 Ocds TP cipus Tay écopevwv, kat katavoncas fori Tod ep’ Hpiv 
Tavbé tivev émt evocBeav Kal dpyyy emt taitny peta tiv fomV K.T.A. 
(Philocal. xxv. 2. p. 227, ed. Robinson; the comment ad Joc. is rather nearer 
the mark, cognovisse suos dicitur, hoc est in dilectione habutsse sibique 
sociasse, but there too is added sczens guales essent). Cyril of Alexandria 
(and after him Meyer) supplies from what follows mpoeyywoOncav ws écovrat 
odppoppa tis eixdvos Tov Tiod adrov, but this belongs properly only to 
mpowpice. Widest from the mark are those who, like Calvin, look beyond 
the immediate choice to final salvation: Dez autem praecognitio, cuius hic 
Paulus meminit, non nuda est praescientia...sed adoptio qua fulios suos 
@ reprobis semper discrevit. On the other hand, Gif. keeps closely to the 
context in explaining, ‘‘‘ Foreknew ” as the individual objects of His purpose 
(mpd0ecrs) and therefore foreknew as “them that love God.”’ The only 
defect in this seems to be that it does not sufficiently take account of the 
O. T. and N. T. use of ysyveoxw. 


218 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VIII. 29, 30. 


nat mpodpice. The Apostle overleaps for the moment inter- 
mediate steps and carries the believer onward to the final con- 
summation of God’s purpose in respect to him. This is exactly 
defined as ‘ conformity to the image of His Son.’ 

cuppdppous denotes inward and thorough and not merely super- 
ficial likeness. 

tis eixdvos. As the Son is the image of the Father (a Cor. iv. 
4; Col. i. 15), so the Christian is to reflect the image of His 
Lord, passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character 
to an ultimate assimilation of His édéa, the absorption of the 
splendour of His presence. 

eis TO elvat aitév mpwrdroKoy év modois ASeApots. As the final 
cause of all things is the glory of God, so the final cause of the 
Incarnation and of the effect of the Incarnation upon man is that 
the Son may be surrounded by a multitude of the redeemed. 
These He vouchsafes to call His ‘brethren.’ They are a ‘family,’ 
the entrance into which is through tke Resurrection. / As Christ 
was the first to rise, He is the ‘ Eldest-born’ (mpwréroxos éx ray 
vexpav, iva yévnras év macw avtis mpwrevov Col. i, 18). This is 
different from the ‘ first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). mpard- 
toxos is a metaphorical expression ; the sense of which is determined 
by the context; in Col. i. 15 it is relative to creation, here it is 
relative to the state to which entrance is through the Resurrection 
(see Lightfoot’s note on the passage in Col.). 

80. ols 3€ mpodpice k.7.A. Having taken his readers to the end 
of the scale, the défa in which the career of the Christian cul- 
minates, the Apostle now goes back and resolves the latter part of 
the process into its subdivisions, of which the landmarks are 
exddevev, edixaiooev, eddgace. These are not quite exhaustive: 
jyiacey might have been inserted after éd:xaiwoev; but it is suffi- 
ciently implied as a consequence of édicatwoev and a necessary 
condition of ¢iéface: in pursuance of the Divine purpose that 
Christians should be conformed to Christ, the first step is the call; 
this brings with it, when it is obeyed, the wiping out of past sins, 
or justification; and from that there is a straight course to the 
crowning with Divine glory.” ékddecey and cdixaiwoev are both 
naturally in the aorist tense as pointing to something finished 
and therefore past: éddfacew is not strictly either finished or past, 
but it is attracted into the same tense as the preceding verbs; an 
attraction which is further justified by the fact that, though not 
complete in its historical working out, the step implied in ¢défacev 
is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels. To God 
there is neither ‘ before nor after.’ 


VIII. 31-39. ] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 219 


THE PROOFS AND ASSURANCE OF DIVINE LOVE. 


VIII. 31-39. With the proofs of God's love before him, 
the Christian has nothing to fear. God, the Fudge, is on 
his side, and the ascended Christ intercedes for him 
(vv. 31-34). 

The love of God in Christ ts so strong that earthly 
sufferings and persecutions—nay, all forms and phases of 
being—are powerless to intercept it, or to bar the Christian's 


triumph (vv. 35-39)- 


*1'What conclusion are we to draw from this? Surely the 
strongest possible comfort and encouragement. With God on our 
side what enemy can we fear? “As Abraham spared not Isaac, 
so He spared not the Son who shared His Godhead, but suffered 
Him to die for all believers. Is not this a sure proof that along 
with that one transcendent gift His bounty will provide all that is 
necessary for our salvation? ‘* Where shall accusers be found 
against those whom God has chosen? When.God pronounces 
righteous, * who shall condemn? For us Christ has died; I should 
say rather rose again; and not only rose but sits enthroned at 
His Father’s side, and there pleads continually for us. * His love 
is our security. And that love is so strong that nothing on earth 
can come between us and it. The sea of troubles that a Christian 
has to face, hardship and persecution of every kind, are powerless 
against it; * though the words of the Psalmist might well be 
applied to us, in which, speaking of the faithful few in his own 
generation, he described them as ‘for God’s sake butchered all 
day long, treated like sheep in the shambles.’ * We too are no 
better than they. And yet, crushed and routed as we may seem, 
the love of Christ crowns us with surpassing victory. **For I am 
convinced that no form or phase of being, whether abstract or 
personal ; not life or its negation ; not any hierarchy of spirits; no 
dimension of time; no supernatural powers; **no dimension of 
space; no world of being invisible to us now,—will ever come 
between us and the love which God has brought so near to us in 
Jesus Messiah our Lord. 


220 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 32, 33 


82. Ss ye tod iSfou utod odk epeicato, A number of emphatic 
expressions are crowded together in this sentence: ds ye, ‘the same 
God who’; rod idiov viod, ‘His own Son,’ partaker of His own 
nature; ov« épeicaro, the word which is used of the offering of 
Isaac in Gen. xxii. 16, and so directly recalls that offering—the 
greatest sacrifice on record. For the argument comp. v. 6-10. 

83-35. The best punctuation of these verses is that which is 
adopted in RV. “xt (so also Orig. Chrys. Theodrt. Mey. Ell. 
Gif. Va. Lid.). There should not be more than a colon between 
the clauses Geds 6 dixaiav" tis 6 Karaxpwav; God is conceived of as 
Judge: where He acquits, who can condemn? Ver. 34 is then 
immediately taken up by ver. 35: Christ proved His love by dying 
for us; who then shall part us from that love? The Apostle 
clearly has in his mind Is. l. 8, 9 ‘ He is near that justifieth men ; 
who will contend with me?... Behold, the Lord God will help 
me; who is he that shall condemn me?’ This distinctly favours 
the view that each affirmation is followed by a question relating to 
that affirmation. The phrases 6 xaraxpwav and 6 dav form 
a natural antithesis, which it is wrong to break up by putting a full 
stop between them and taking one with what precedes, the other 
with what follows, 


On the view taken above, @eds 6 d:xaidv and Xpiords “Inoots 5 drobavaw 
are both answers to ris éyxadéoe; and Tis 6 KataxpwwGv; Tis Huas xwpice ; 
are subordinate questions, suggested in the one case by diay, in the other 
by évr. trép #ua@v. We observe also that on this view ver. 35 is closely 
linked to ver. 34. The rapid succession of thought which is thus obtained, 
each step leading on to the next, is in full accordance with the spirit of the 

assage. 
r Another way of taking it is to put a full stop at d:aav, and to make tls 
éyxaréoa; Tis 6 Kataxpvav; two distinct questions with wholly distinct 
answers. So Fri. Lips. Weiss Oltr. Go. Others again (RV. marg. Beng. 
De W. Mou.) make all the clauses questions (@eds 6 dixai@v; evTvyx. inp 
jay ;) But these repeated challenges do not give such a nervous concatena- 
tion of reasoning. 


83. tis éyxahéoer; another of the forensic terms which are so 
common in this Epistle ; ‘Who shall impeach such as are elect of 
God?’ 

éxdextav. We have already seen (note’on i. 1) that with 
St. Paul «Anrot and éxAexroi are not opposed to each other (as they 
are in Matt. xxii. 14) but are rather to be identified. By reading 
into «Anrot the implication that the call is accepted, St. Paul shows 
that the persons of whom this is true are also objects of God’s 
choice. By both terms St. Paul designates not those who are de 
stined for final salvation, but those who are ‘summoned’ or ‘ se- 
lected’ for the privilege of serving God and carrying out His will. 
If their career runs its normal course it must issue in salvation, 
the ‘glory’ reserved for them; this lies as it were at the end of 


Viit. 33-36.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 221 


the avenue; but éxAecréy only shows that they are in the right 
way to reach it. At least no external power can bar them from wait 
it; if they lose it, they will do so by their own fault. 
xataxplvwv: xataxpwav RV. text Mou. This is quite possible, but 3:ca:dv 
suggests the present. 
$4. Xpictos Tncots NACFGL, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Did. 

Aug.: Xporés (om. Incots) BDEK &c., Syrr., Cyr.-Jerus. Chrys. ai. 

Another instance of B in alliance with authorities otherwise Western and 

Syrian. WH. bracket ’Ine. 

éyepOeis ex verpOv N* AC al. plur., RV. WH': om. te vexpav SC BDE 

FGKL &c, Ti. WH®. The group which inserts é vexpav is practically 

the same as that which inserts "Ijcois above. 

és xat. Stroke follows stroke, each driving home the last. ‘It 
is Christ who died—nay rather (zmo vero) rose from the dead— 
who (xai should be omitted here) is at the right hand of God—who 
also intercedes for us.’ It is not a dead Christ on whom we depend, 
but a living. It is not only a living Christ, but a Christ enthroned, 
a Christ in power. It is not only a Christ in power, but a Christ! | 
of ever-active sympathy, constantly (if we may so speak) at the 
Father's ear, and constantly pouring in intercessions for His-— 
struggling people on earth. A great text for the value and 
significance of the Ascension (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 67 f.). 

35. dwé tis dydamns Tod Xptotod. There is an alternative reading 
rod @eou for which the authorities are 8 B, Orig. (1/3 doubtfully in 
the Greek, but 6/7 in Rufinus’ Latin translation); Eus. 4/6; Bas. 
2/6; Hil. 1/2 and some others. RV. WH. note this reading in 
marg. But of the authorities B Orig.-lat. 2/7 read in full awd ris 
aydanns Tov Gcod THs ev Xpiot@ “Incov, which is obviously taken from 
ver. 39. Even in its simpler form the reading is open to suspicion 
of being conformed to that verse: to which however it may be 
replied that Xporod may also be a correction from the same source. 
On the whole Xpicrod seems more probable, and falls in better with 
the view maintained above of the close connexion of vv. 34, 35. 

‘The love of Christ’ is unquestionably ‘the love of Christ for 
us,” not our love for Christ: cf. v. 5. 

Odtyus x.7.A. We have here a splendid example of xavynots ev 
tats @kiveow of which St. Paul wrote in ch. v. 3 ff. The passage 
shows how he soared away in spirit above those ‘sufferings of this 
present time’ which men might inflict, but after that had nothing 
more that they could do. On Adiis 4 crevoywpia see ii, 9; for 
Siwypuds cf. 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff., 32f.; xii. 10, &c.; for Amos } yupvorys, 
1 Cor. iv. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 27; for xivdvvos 2 Cor. xi. 26; 1 Cor. 
XV. 30. 

36. om Evexd cov. The quotation is exact from LXX of Ps. 
xliv [xliii]. 23: dre belongs to it. 

& exer is decisively attested here: in the Psalm B has &exa, NAT Geeoy, 

where there is a presumption against the reading of B. 


’ 


222 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [VIITI. 86-88. 


Oavarotpeba SAny thy pepov: cf. 1 Cor. xv. 37 wal Hpépay 
arobvnoxw: ‘tota die, hoc est, omnt vilae meae tempore’ Orig. 

mpoBata opayijs: sheep destined for slaughter; ef. Zech. xi. 4 
ra mpoBara ths opayijs (cf. Jer. xii. 3 mpé8ara eis oaynv Cod. Marchal. 
marg.). 


The Latin texts of this verse are marked and characteristic. Tertullian, 
Scorp.13 Tua causa mortificamur tota die, deputati sumus ut pecora iugu- 
lationis. Cyprian, Zest. iii. 18 (the true text; cf. Zfzst. xxxi. 4) Causa tut 
occtdimur tota die, deputatt sumus ut oves victimae. Hilary of Poitiers, 
Tract. in Ps. exviii. (ed. Zingerle, p. 429) Propter te mortificamur tota die, 
deputati sumus sicut oves occistonis. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. XI. xxii. 2 
(Latine; cf. 1V. xvi. 2) Propter te morte afficimur tota die, aestimati sumus 
ut oves occisionis. (Similarly Cod. Clarom. Speculum Augustini, codd. ML) 
Vulgate (Cod. Amiat.) Propter te mortificamur tota die, aestimati sumus 
st oves occistonts. Were two types of text stand out clearly: that of Cyprian 
at one end of the scale, and that of the Vulgate (with which we may group 
Tren.-lat. Cod. Clarom. and the Sfecu/um) at the other. Hilary stands 
between, having defutaté in common with Cyprian, but on the whole leaning 
rather to the later group. The most difficult problem is presented by 
Tertullian, who approaches Cyprian in Z7ua causa and deputaté, and the 
Vulgate group in mortificamur: in pecora iugulationis he stands alone. 
This passage might seem to favour the view that in Tertullian we had the 
primitive text from which all the rest were derived. That hypothesis how- 
ever would be difficult to maintain systematically; and in any case there 
must be a large element in Tertullian’s text which is simply individual. 
The text before us may be said to give a glimpse of the average position of 
a problem which is still some way from solution. 


37. SmepvixGpev. Tertullian and Cyprian represent this by the 
coinage supervincimus (Vulg. Cod. Clarom. Hil. superamus) ; ‘ over- 
come strongly’ Tyn.; ‘are more than conquerors’ Genev., happily 
adopted in AV. 

Sia Tod dyamjcavtos Has points back to ris ayamyns rov Xpicros 
in ver. 35. 

88. ore Gyyehot ovTe dpyait. ‘And He will call on all the host 
of the heavens and all the holy ones above, and the host of God, 
the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and all the angels of 
power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect One, and 
the other powers on the earth, over the water, on that day’ Enoch 
Ixi. 10. St. Paul from time to time makes use of similar Jewish 
designations for the hierarchy of angels: so in & Cor. xv. 24; 
Eph. i. 21 dpyy, eLovoia, Suvapis, xupidrns, mav svopa dvouatdpevoy : 
iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16 (@pdvo, xupidrnres, apxat, e€ovciat) ; il. 10, 
15. The whole world of spirits is summed up in Phil. ii. 10 as 
enoupanot, etyeiot, karaxOdmor. It is somewhat noticeable that whereas 
the terms used are generally abstract, in several places they are 
made still more abstract by the use of the sing. instead of plur., 
dray xatapyjoy macay apyiy Kat macav efovoiay Kai Sivapw ¥ Cor. XV. 
243; tmepavw mdons dpxis cai cfovoias wtA. Eph. i, 203 @ Kepady 
ndons apxijs kai efovcias Col. ii to. 


VIII. 38, 39.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 223 


It is also true (as pointed out by Weiss, Bzdl. Theol. § 104; 
Anm. 1. 2) that the leading passages in which St. Paul speaks of 
angels are those in which his language aims at embracing the 
whole xécpos. He is very far from a Opqcxeia rav dyyé\ov Such as he 
protests against in the Church at Colossae (Col. ii. 18). At the 
same time the parallels which have been given (see also below 
under évvduers) are enough to show that the Apostle must not be 
separated from the common beliefs of his countrymen. He held 
that there was a world of spirits brought into being like the rest of 
creation by Christ (Col. i. 16). These spirits are ranged in 
a@ certain hierarchy to which the current names are given. They 
seem to be neither wholly good nor wholly bad, for to them too 
the Atonement of the Cross extends (Col. i. 20 dmoxara\daéa Ta 
mdvra eis alrov ,, . ere Ta emi THs yas cire Ta év Tois ovpavois). There 
is a sense in which the Death on the Cross is a triumph over them 
(Col. ii. 15). They too must acknowledge the universal sovereignty 
of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 24; cf. Eph. i. 10); and they form part of 
that kingdom which He hands over to the Father, that ‘God may 
be all in all’ (1 Cor. xv. 28). On the whole subject see Everling, 
Die paulinische Angelologie u. Démonologze, Gottingen, 1888. 

For dyyeAa the Westem text (D EF G, Ambrstr. Aug. Amb.) has 

Gyyedos. There is also a tendency in the Western and later authorities to 


insert odre éfovcia: before or after dpxai, obviously from the parallel passages 
in which the words occur together. 


ore Suvduers. There is overwhelming authority (WA BCD &c.) 
for placing these words after odre pédNovra. We naturally expect 
them to be associated with dpxai, as in 1 Cor. xv. 243 Eph. i. 21. 
It is possible that in one of the earliest copies the word may have 
been accidentally omitted, and then added in the margin and re- 
inserted at the wrong place. We seem to have a like primitive 
corruption in ch. iv. 12 (rots oroyovow). But it is perhaps more 
probable that in the rush of impassioned thought St. Paul inserts 
the words as they come, and that thus ore dvvdyers may be slightly 
belated. It has been suggested that St. Paul takes alternately 
animate existences and inanimate. When not critically controlled, 
the order of association is a very subtle thing. 

For the word compare ‘the angels of power’ and ‘the other powers on 
the earth’ in the passage from the Book of Enoch quoted above; also Zest. 
AIT Patr. Levi 3 &v 7@ pity (sc. odpavd) cicty ai Suvdues Tov wapexBoray, 
oi Taxevres cis Hpépay KpicEws, Tojoas exdixnow ev Tois mvevpact THS TAGYAS 
wai Tov BeAiap, 

39. otre Gpwpa otre Balos. Lips. would give to the whole 
context a somewhat more limited application than is usually 
assigned to it. He makes oie eveor. . . Ba6os all refer to angelic 
powers: ‘neither now nor at the end of life (when such spirits 
were thought to be most active) shall the spirits either of the 


224 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ VIII. 39, 


height or from the depth bar our entrance into the next world, 
where the love of Christ will be still nearer to us.’ This is also 
the view of Origen (see below). But it is quite in the manner of 
St. Paul to personify abstractions, and the sense attached to them 
cannot well be too large: cf. esp. Eph. iii. 18 ri 76 mAdros nai pijxos 
kai typos cai Babos, and a Cor. x. 5 may Upwpua ématpopevow xara ras 
yvaoews Tov Geod. 


The common patristic explanation of fwya is ‘things above the heavens,’ 
and of Bd6os, ‘things beneath the earth.’ Theod. Monach. t~wpa pev 7a 
dyav éridofa, Babos 5 7a dyav ddofa, Theodoret Bddos 3& ri yéevvay, 
Dyopa tiv Baoreiay. Origen (in Cramer's Catena) explains t~opa of the 
‘spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places’ (Eph. vi. 12), and 
Bafos of 7a xatay@dvia, The expanded version of Rufinus approaches still 
more nearly to the theory of Lipsius: Stmz/iter e¢ altitudo et profundum 
impugnant nos, sicut et David dicit multi qui debellant me de alto: sine 
dubio cum a spiritibus nequitiae de caelestibus urgeretur: et sicut iterum 
dicit: de profundis clamavi ad te, Domine: cum ab his gus in inferno 
deputati sunt et gehennae spiritibus impugnaretur. 


ouUre Tig KTlots érépa. The use of érépa and not adn seems to 
favour the view that this means not exactly ‘any other created 
thing ’ but ‘ any other kind of creation,’ ‘any other mode of being,’ 
besides those just enumerated and differing from the familiar world 
as we see it. 


Origen (in Cramer) would like to take the passage in this way. He asks 
if there may not be another creation besides this visible one, ‘in its nature 
visible though not as yet seen’—a description which might seem to anticipate 
the discoveries of the microscope and telescope. Comp. Balfour, Foundations 
of Belief, p. 71 f. ‘It is impossible therefore to resist the conviction that 
there must be an indefinite number of aspects of Nature respecting which 
science never can give us any information, even in our dreams. We must 
conceive ourselves as feeling our way about this dim corner of the illimit- 
able world, like children in a darkened room, encompassed by we know 
not what; a little better endowed with the machinery of sensation than the 
protozoon, yet poorly provided indeed as compared with a being, if such 
a one could be conceived, whose senses were adequate to the infinite variety 
of material Nature.’ 


én tis dydmms Tod Geo THs év XptotaInood. This is the full 
Christian idea. The love of Christ is no doubt capable of being 
isolated and described separately (2 Cor. v. 14; Eph. iii. 19), but 
the love of Christ is really a manifestation of the love of God. 
A striking instance of the way in which the whole Godhead 
co-operates in this manifestation is ch. v. 5-8: the love of God 
is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, because Christ 
died for us; and God commends His love because C&rzs# died. 
The same essential significance runs through this section (note 


esp. w. 31-35, 39). 


IX. 1-5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 225 


THE APOSTLE’S SORROW OVER ISRAEL’S UNBELIEF. 


Ix. 1-5. The thought of this magnificent prospect fills 
me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from 1t— 
my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice 
my dearest hopes—excluded too in spite of all their special 
privileges and their high destiny. 


? How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ! How mournful 
the thought of those who are cut off from it! There is no 
shadow of falsehood in the statement I am about to make. As 
one who has his life in Christ I affirm a solemn truth; and my 
conscience, speaking under the direct influence of God’s Holy 
Spirit, bears witness to my sincerity. *There is one grief that 
I cannot shake off, one distressing weight that lies for ever at my 
heart. * Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer 
has been in my mind: Could I by the personal sacrifice of my 
own salvation for them, even by being cut off from all communion 
with Christ, in any way save my own countrymen? Are they not 
my own brethren, my kinsmen 1s far as earthly relationship is 
concerned? *Are they not God’s own privileged people? They 
bear the sacred name of Israel with all that it implies; it is they 
whom He declared to be His ‘son,’ His ‘firstborn’ (Exod. iv. 22); 
their temple has been illuminated by the glory of the Divine 
presence; they are bound to Him by a series of covenants re- 
peatedly renewed; to them He gave a system of law on Mount 
Sinai; year after year they have offered up the solemn worship of 
the temple ; they have been the depositories of the Divine promises ; 
‘their ancestors are the patriarchs, who were accounted righteous 
before God; from them in these last days has come the Messiah 
as regards his natural descent—that Messiah who although sprung 
from a human parent is supreme over all things, none other than 
God, the eternal object of human praise! 


IX-XI. St. Paul has now finished his main argument. He 
has expounded his conception of the Gospel. But there still 
remains a difficulty which could not help suggesting itself to 
every thoughtful reader, and which was continually being raised 
by one class of Christians at the time when he wrote. How is 
this new scheme of righteousness and salvation apart from law 


2.26 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [x1 


consistent with the privileged position of the Jews? They had 
been the chosen race (we find St. Paul enumerating their privileges), 
through them the Messiah had come, and yet it appeared they 
would be rejected if they would not accept this new righteousness 
by faith. How is this consistent with the justice of God? 

The question has been continually in the Apostle’s mind. It 
has led him to emphasize more than once the fact that the new 
evayyéduiov if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (i. 16, 
ii. g). It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews 
especially had sinned (ii. 17). Once indeed he has begun to 
discuss it directly (iii. 1); ‘ What advantage then is there in being 
a Jew?’ but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was necessary 
first to complete his main argument. He has dwelt on the fact 
that the new way of salvation can be proved from the Old Testa- 
ment (chap. iv). Now he is at liberty to discuss in full the question ; 
How is this conception of Christ’s work consistent with the fact of 
the rejection of the Jews which it seems to imply? 

The answer to this question occupies the remainder of the 
dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps. ix—xi, generally considered 
to be the third of its principal divisions. The whole section may 
be subdivided as follows: in ix. 6-29 the faithfulness and justice of 
God are vindicated; in ix. 30—-x. 21 the guilt of Israel is proved; 
in chap. xi St. Paul shows the divine purpose which is being fulfilled 
and looks forward prophetically to a future time when Israel will 
be restored, concluding the section with a description of the Wisdom 
of God as far exceeding all human speculation. 


Marcion seems to have omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible 
exception of vv. 1-3. Tert. who passes from viii. 11 to x. 2 says salto et 
hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae (Ado. Mare. v. 14)- See 
Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons p. 518. 


1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion with the 
preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sequence 
of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. 
Perhaps there has been a pause in writing the Epistle, the amanu- 
ensis has for a time suspended his labours. We notice also that 
St. Paul does not here follow his general habit of stating the 
subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example at the 
beginning of chap. iii), but allows it gradually to become evident. 
He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a fact which is 
to him so full of sadness. It will be only too apparent to what he 
refers; and tact and delicacy both forbid him to define it more 
exactly. 

GdyPevav A¢dyw ev XptorG: ‘I speak the truth in Christ, as one 
united with Christ’; cf. 2 Cor. ii. 17 adAN’ as e& eiduxpweias, GAN’ os 
#x Qcod, xatévavrt Oeov ev XpiorS Aadodpev: xii. 19. St. Paul has just 


1X. 1, 2.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 227 


described that union with Christ which will make any form of sin 
impossible; cf. viii. 1, 10; and the reference to this union gives 
solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full 
credence. 

od WedSouar. A Pauline expression. 1 Tim. ii. 7 ddnOeav déya, 
ov Wevdouar: 2 Cor. xi. 31; Gal. i. 20. 

cuppaptupovons: cf. ii. 15; viii. 16. The conscience is personifiea 
so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. 
Oecumenius ad loc. péya Oéder cimeiv, 516 mpoodomoet 7H morevbqvat, 
Tpeis emibepopevos pdptupas, Tov Xprordv, Td “Aytov Llvedua, Kat thy EavTou 
ovveidnot. 

év Mvedpare ‘Ayla with ovpyaprupotons. St. Paul adds further 
solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit 
with the Divine Spirit of which he had spoken in the previous 
chapter. Cf. viii. 16 avré 16 veda cuppaprupet TO mvevdpare Hpar. 

St. Paul begins with a strong assertion of the truth of his 
statement as a man does who is about to say something of the 
truth of which he is firmly convinced himself, although facts and 
the public opinion of his countrymen might seem to be against 
him. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. mpdrepov 8 diaBeBaotras mepi Sv peda 
Aeyewv® Omep modois EOos rrovety Oray peAwoi Te éyewv Tapa Tois ToANois 
dmiorovpevoy Kat imép ov apddpa éavtods eice memeckores. 

2. St: ‘that,’ introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on 
the idea of assertion in the previous sentence. St. Paul does not 
mention directly the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred 
from the next verse. 

Aun (which is opposed to xapa Jn. xvi. 20) appears to mean 
grief as a state of mind; it is rational or emotional: éduvy on the 
other hand never quite loses its physical associations ; it implies 
the anguish or smart of the heart (hence it is closely connected with 
19 xapdia) which is the result of \vay. 


With the grief of St. Paul for his countrymen, we may compare the grief 
of a Jew writing after the fall of Jerusalem, who feels both the misfortune 
and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes his sorrow by 
enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride: 
4 Ezra viii. 15-18 et mune dicens dicam, de omni homine tu magis scts, de 
populo autem tuo, ob quem doleo, et de haereditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et 
propter Israél, propier quem tristis sum, et de semine Lacob, propter guod 
conturbor. Ibid. x. 6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt ? 
quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia contristatur, et humilitate 
humiliata est, et luget ualidissime... 21-22 vides enim quoniam sanctifi- 
catio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demolitum est, et templum 
nostrum adestructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus 
soster conticuit, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri 
extinctum est, et arca testamenti nostri direpia est. Apoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3 
guomodo enim ingemiscam super Sione, et quomodo lugebo super Lerusalem ? 
quta in loco isto ubi prostratus sum nunc, olim summus sacerdos offerebat 
oblationes sanctas. ; 


228 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Tx. 3. 


8. This verse which is introduced by ydép does not give the 
reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity, 

néxépny: ‘the wish was in my mind’ or perhaps ‘the prayer 
was in my heart.’ St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish 
without regard to the conditions which made it impossible. Cf. Lft. 
on Gal. iv, 20 ‘The thing is spoken of in itself, prior to and 
independently of any conditions which might affect its possibility.’ 
See also Acts xxv. 22, and Burton, J. and T. § 33. 

évd8epa: ‘accursed,’ ‘devoted to destruction.” The word was 
originally used with the same meaning as dva@nua (of which it was 
a dialectic variation, see below), ‘that which is offered or consecrated 
to God.’ But the translators of the Old Testament required an 
expression to denote that which is devoted to God for destruction, and 
adopted dvdeua as a translation of the Hebrew 021: see Levit. xxvii. 
28, 29 nav dé avdOepa 6 eav avaby avOpwros TO Kupim.. . obx amodacerat 
ovdé AuTpooerat .. . Kal may 6 éeav avareby) avo Tav avOpomev ov AuTpwb- 
gerat, GAG Oavdrw Cavatwbjceras: Deut. vii. 26; Josh. vi. 17 xat €oras 
1) TOs GvdOcpa, adth Kat wavta 60a éotiv ev ait, Kupia oa8aod. And 
with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament: Gal. i. 
8,9; 1 Cor. xvi. 22. The attempt to explain the word to mean 
‘excommunication’ from the society—a later use of the Hebrew in 
Rabbinical writers and the Greek in ecclesiastical—arose from 
a desire to take away the apparent profanity of the wish. 


There is some doubt and has been a good deal of discussion as to the 
distinction in meaning between dva@eua and dvd0nya, It was originally 
dialectic, dva@jpya being the Attic form (dva0nya drrix@s, dvdSeya eAAnuiKas 
Moeris, p. 28) and dva@eya being found as a substitute in non-Attic works 
(Anth. P. 6. 162, C./.G. 2693d and other instances are quoted by the 
Dictionaries), ‘The Hellenistic form was the one naturally used by the 
writers of the LXX, and it gradually became confined to the new meaning 
attached to the word, but the distinction seems never to have become 
certain and MSS. and later writers often confuse the two words. In the 
LXX (although Hatch and Redpath make no distinction) our present texts 
seem to preserve the difference of the two words. The only doubtful $ 
is 2 Mace. ii. 13; here A reads dvaeya where we should expect dva@nya, 
but V (the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the authorities in Holmes 
and Parsons have adva@nya. In the N.T. dva@nya occurs once, Luke xxi. 5, 
and then correctly (but the MSS. vary, ava6yua BL, avaGeua NAD). The 
Fathers often miss the distinction at explain the two words as identical: 
so Ps.-Just. Quaest. et Resp. 121; Theod. on Rom. ix. 3, and Suidas; they 
are distinguished in Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3 as quoted by Suidas, but not in 
Field’s ed. No certain instance is quoted of dva6nya for dvaGepa, but dvafeua 
could be and was used dialectically for ava9nua. On the word generally 
see esp. Trench Syz. i. § 5; Lft. Gal. i. 8; Fri. on Rom. ix. 3. 


autos €ys. The emphasis and position of these words emphasizes 
the willingness for personal sacrifice; and they have still more force 
when we remember that St. Paul has just declared that nothing in 
heaven or earth can separate him from the love of Christ. Chrys. 
ad loc, ti A€yers, @ Ludke; awd tod Xpicrovd rod wodovpévou, od pyre 


IX. 3, 4.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 229 


BaoiNela oe, unre yeevva exwpite, pyre TA voovpmera, pyre G\da Tocadra, and 
TOUTOU viv evn avaepua etvat; 

amd tod Xpiotod: +‘ separated from the Christ,’ a pregnant use 
of the preposition. The translation of the words as if they were 
tro tT. X. arises from a desire to soften the expression. 

kata adpka: cf. iv. 1 ‘as far as earthly relations are concerned’; 
spiritually St. Paul was a member of the spiritual Israel, and his 
kinsmen were the adeA¢goi of the Christian society. 

The prayer of St. Paul is similar to that of Moses: Exod. xxxii. 
32 ‘Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, 
I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.’ On this 
Clem. Rom. liii. 5 comments as follows: & peyadAns dyamns, & reded- 
THTos avuTepBANTOov, mappynotdleras Oepdrwv mpds Kupiov, aireirar apeow To 
mAnOer 7 Kat cavrov e€arerpOnvar pet avTay déioit, In answer to those 
who have found difficulties in the passage it is enough to say with 
Prof. Jowett that they arise from ‘the error of explaining the 
language of feeling as though it were that of reasoning and 
reflection.’ 


There are one or two slight variations of reading in ver. 3, airds éyw was 
placed before avaé. efv. by CKL, Vulg., and later authorities with T R, and 
t7é (DEG) substituted for dr6 (NABC &c.). Both variations arise from 
a desire to modify the passage. 


4, oitwés eiow: ‘inasmuch as theyare.’ St. Paul’s grief for Israel 
arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, but 
also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine 
economy. 

*Ilopandtrar: used of the chosen people in special reference to 
the fact that, as descendants of him who received from God the 
name of Israel, they are partakers of those promises of which it was 
a sign. The name therefore implies the privileges of the race; 
cf. Eph. ii. 12 dan\dorpi@pévor ths modsrelas Tov “Iopand Kat Eevor Tov 
diaOnkGv tis emayyehias; and as such it could be used metaphorically 
of the Christians (6 "Iopay\ tod Gcod Gal. vi. 16; cf. ver. 6 inf.); a use 
which would of course be impossible for the merely national designa- 
tion ’Iovdaior. 

‘Israel’ is the title used in contemporary literature to express the 
special relations of the chosen people to God. Ps. Sol. xiv. 3 or 
1) pepis Kat 7) KAnpovopia Tov Gcod eorw 6 Iopand: Ecclus, xvii. 15 pepis 
Kupiou “lopayA éoriv: Jubilees xxxiii. 18 ‘ For Israel is a nation holy 
unto God, and a nation of inheritance for its God, and a nation of 
priesthood and royalty and a possession.’ Thus the word seems to 
have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The 
Messianic times are ‘the day of gladness of Israel’ (Ps. Sol. x. 7), 
che blessing of Israel, the day of God’s mercy towards Israel 
(ib. Xvii. 50, 51 pakdptos o -ywwdpevos ey tais ucpais exeivas ide Ta 


230 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1x. 4. 


ayaa "lopandr & ovvuywyy hudrav, A mouce 6 Geds. rtaybvar 6 Geds emt 
*Iapand 7d Edeos avrov). When therefore St. Paul uses this name he 
reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above 
all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, who 
when he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the 
privileges of his kingdom. 

vioQecia: ‘the adoption,’ ‘status of an adopted son’: on the 
origin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see 
above, Rom. viii. 15. Here it implies that relationship of Israel to 
God described in Exod. iv, 22 rade Xéyer Kipsos Yids mpwrdroxds pou 
‘Iopand ; Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii.6; Jer. xxxi.9 ; Hos. xi.1. So Judzlees 
i. 21 ‘I will be a Father unto them, and they shall be My children, 
and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every 
angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are 
My children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and 
in righteousness and that I love them.’ 

4 86§a: ‘the visible presence of God among His people’ (see 
on iii. 23). éééa is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew 
mim’ 333, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah (732%), the 
bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth; 
cf. Exod. xvi. 10, &c. Hence rd «adios ris 86£ns airod Ps. Sol, ii. 5, 
amo Opovov So&ns ib. ver. 20, Wisd. ix. 10, imply more than the mere 
beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Acts vii. 2, speaks of 
6 eds tis ddéns his words would remind his hearers of the visible 
presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the 
temple. On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Shekinah 
see Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 179. 

at S:aQijxat: ‘the covenants,’ see Hatch Essays on Biblical 
Greek, p. 43. The plural is used not with reference to the two 
covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original 
covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed 
(Gen. vi. 18; ix.g; xv. 18; xvii. 2, 7,9 ; Ex. ii. 24). Comp. Ecclus. 
xliv. 11 pera Tod orepparos avradv Stayevei dyab; «\npovopia, éxyova avray 
év tais duabnxats ; Wisdom xviii. 22 Ady@ Tov xoha{ovra Urérakev, Gpxous 
matépwv kat Stabnxas tmouvicas. According to Irenaeus, III. xi. 11 
(ed. Harvey) there were four covenants: kui da rovro réocapes €d6- 
Onoav KaOodtxai Stabjxat 7H avOpwrdrnre* pia ev TOU KaTakAvopou Tov 
NGe, éxi trod ré€ou" Seurépa dé rod "ABpadp, emi rod onpetou ths meptropns* 
tpitn S€ n vopobccia emi Tov Mavoéws* retraprn dé 9 Tov EvayyeXiov, dia 
tov Kupiov nav ‘Incod Xpiorov *. 

The Jews believed that they were bound to God and that God 
was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them 
His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just 
those who were not bound to Him by a covenant who would 
receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and 


® In the Latin version the four covenants are Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ. 


IX. 4, 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 231 


its practical bearing on Jewish life see Schiirer Geschichée, ii. 
388. 

ae vonoSecia: a classical word, occurring also in Philo. ‘The 

giving of the law.’ ‘The dignity and glory of having a law com- 

municated by express revelation, and amidst circumstances so full 

of awe and splendour.’ Vaughan. 

The current Jewish estimation of the Law (6 véyos 6 imdpyer 
eis roy aiaéva Baruch iv. 1) it is unnecessary to illustrate, but the 
point in the mention of it here is brought out more clearly if we 
remember that all the Messianic hopes were looked upon as the 
reward of those who kept the Law. So ?s. Sol. xiv. 1 muorés Kupios 
Tois dyan@ow avtov év GdnOcia ... Tois mopevouevois ev Sexarocvvy mpoctay- 
pdtv aitod, év vouw as évereiAato quiv eis (av judy. It was one of 
the paradoxes of the situation that it was just those who neglected 
the Law who would, according to St. Paul’s teaching, inherit the 
promises. 

4 Aatpeta: ‘the temple service.’ Heb.ix. 1,6; 1 Macc. ii. 19, 22. 
As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be 
quoted Pirge Adoth, i. 2 (Taylor, p. 26) ‘Shimeon ha-Caddiq 
was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On 
three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the 
Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses.’ According to the 
Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be 
a revival of the temple services. (Weber Alésyn. Theol. p. 359-) 

ai émayyeAiat: ‘the promises made in the O. T. with special 
reference to the coming of the Messiah.’ These promises were of 
course made to the Jews, and were always held to apply particularly 
to them. While sinners were to be destroyed before the face of 
the Lord, the saints of the Lord were to inherit the promises 
(cf. Ps. Sol. xii. 8); and in Jewish estimation ‘sinners were the 
gentiles and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the 
choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be 
discussed. See note on i 2, and the note of Ryle and James on 
Ps. Sol. loc. cit.; cf.also Heb.vi.12; xi.13; Gal. iii.tg; 1 Clem. x. 2. 

af Sic6Fxax NCL, Vulg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into # :adjen 

BDFG, Vulg. codd. fauc.; also érayycAia into éwayyeAla DEF G, Boh. 

Both variations are probably due to fancied difficulties, 

5, ot watepes: ‘the patriarchs.’ Acts iii. 13, vii. 32. On the 
‘merits’ of the patriarchs and their importance in Jewish theology 
see the note on p. 330. 

e€ Gv 6 Xpiotés TO xnta odpxa. Cf. x Clem. xxxii. 2 e& airod 6 
Kupwos "Incois ro xara cdpxa. 6 Xp. is not a personal name, but must 
be translated ‘ the Messiah.’ Not only have the Jews been united 
to God by so many ties, but the purpose for which they have been 
selected has been fulfilled. The Messiah has come forth from 
them, and yet they have been rejected. 


232 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [TX. 5. 


& vy én mdvrev Oeds, w.t..: with Xpicrds (see below), ‘who is 
God over all blessed for ever.’ mdvrwy is probably neuter, ef. xi. 36. 
This description of the supreme dignity of Him who was on His 
human side of Jewish stock serves to intensify the conception of 
the privileged character of the Jewish race. 


The Privileges of Israel. 


By this enumeration of the privileges of Israel St. Paul fulfils two 
purposes in his argument. He gives firstly the facts which 
intensify his sorrow. Like the writer of 4 Ezra his grief is 
heightened by the remembrance of the position which his country- 
men have held in the Divine economy. Every word in the long 
list calls to mind some link which had united them, the Chosen 
People, with God; every word reminds us of the glory of their past 
history; and it is because of the great contrast suggested between 
the destiny of Israel and their actual condition that his grief is so 
profound. 

But the Apostle has another and more important thought to 
emphasize. He has to show the reality and the magnitude of the 
problem before him, and this list of the privileges of Israel just empha- 
sizes it. It was so great as almost to be paradoxical. It was this. 
Israel was a chosen people, and was chosen for a certain purpose. 
According to the teaching of the Apostle it had attained this end: 
the Messiah, whose coming represented in a sense the consum- 
mation of its history, had appeared, and yet from any share in the 
glories of this epoch the Chosen People themselves were cut off. 
All the families of the earth were to be blessed in Israel: Israel 
itself was not to be blessed. They were in an especial sense the 
sons of God: but they were cut off from the inheritance. They 
were bound by special covenants to God: the covenant had been 
broken, and those outside shared in the advantages. The glories of 
the Messianic period might be looked upon as a recompense for 
the long years of suffering which a faithful adhesion to the Law and 
a loyal preservation of the temple service had entailed: the bless- 
ings were to come for those who had never kept the Law. The 
promises were given to and for Israel: Israel alone would not 
inherit them. 

Such was the problem. The pious Jew, remembering the 
sufferings of his nation, pictured the Messianic time as one when 
these should all pass away; when all Israel—pure and without stair 
—should be once more united; when the ten tribes should be 
collected from among the nations; when Israel which had suffered 
much from the Gentiles should be at last triumphant over them. 
All this he expected. The Messiah had come: and Israel, the 


IX. 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 233 


Messiah’s own people, seemed to be cut off and rejected from the 
blessings which it had itself prepared for the world. How was this 
problem to be solved? (Cf. 4 Ezra xiii; Schiirer, Geschichie, 


il. 452 sq-) 


The Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5. 


wat é¢ dv 5 Xpiords 76 Kata cdpxa, © dv emt ndyrav, @eds evAoyyTds els Tous 
aigvas* dpnv. 

The interpretation of Rom. ix. 5 has probably been discussed at greater Special 

length than that of any other verse of the N.T. Besides long notes in literature 
various commentaries, the following special papers may be mentioned: 
Schultz, in Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1868, vol. xiii. pp. 462-506; 
Grimm, Zwth., 1869, pp. 311-322; Harmsen, ib. 1872, pp. 510, 521: but 
England and America have provided the fullest discussions—by Prof. 
Kennedy and Dr. Gifford, namely, 7he Divinity of Christ, a sermon 
preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the University of Cambridge, with 
an appendix on Rom. ix. 5 and Titus ii. 13, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, 
D.D., Cambridge, 1883; Caesarem Appello, a letter to Dr. Kennedy, by 
Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; and Pauline Crrisiology, 
I. Examination of Rom. ix. 5, being a rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. Gifford’s 
reply, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883 : by Prof. Dwight 
and Dr. Ezra Abbot, in 7. &. Zxeg. June and December, 1881, pp. 22-55, 
87-154; and 1883, pp. 90-112. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much 
the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gifford seems to us on the whole to 
show the most exegetical power. 

Dismissing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all of Alternative 
them referred to in the RV.) which have been suggested : interpreta- 

(a) Placing a comma after odpsa and referring the whole passage to tions. 
Christ. So RV. 

(4) Placing a full stop after odpxa and translating ‘He who is God over 
all Se blessed for ever,’ or ‘is blessed for ever.’ So RV. marg. 

(¢) With the same punctuation translating ‘He who is over all is God 
blessed for ever.’ RV. marg. 

(d@) Placing a comma after odpxa and a full stop at mévrwy, ‘who is over 
all. God be (or is) blessed for ever.’ RV. marg. 

It may be convenient to point out at once that the question is one of The ori- 
interpretation and not of criticism. The original MSS. of the Epistles were ginal MSS. 
almost certainly destitute of any sort of punctuation. Of MSS. of the first without 
century we have one containing a portion of Isocrates in which a few dots punctua- 
are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense; in tion. 
the MS. of the ToA:reia of Aristotle, which dates from the end of the first 
or beginning of the second century, there is no punctuation whatever except, 
that a slight space is left before a quotation: this latter probably is as close 
a representation as we can obtain in the present day of the original form of 
the books of the N.T. In carefully written MSS., the work of professional 
scribes, both before and during the first century, the more important pauses 
in the sense were often indicated but lesser pauses rarely or never; and, so 
far as our knowledge enables us to speak, in roughly written MSS. such as 
were no doubt those of the N.T., there is no punctuation at all until about 
the third century. Our present MSS. (which begin in the fourth century) 
do not therefore represent an early tradition. If there were any traditional 
punctuation we should have to seek it rather in early versions or in second 
and third century Fathers: the punctuation of the MSS. is interesting in 
the history of interpretation, but has no other value, 


History of 
the inter- 
pretation, 
(1) The 
Versions. 
(2) The 
Fathers, 


(3) The 
older MSS. 


‘4) Modern 
exiligism. 


234 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 5. 


The history of the interpretation must be passed cver somewhat cursorily. 
For our earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versions, but 
these seem to labour under the same obscurity as the original. It is however 
probably true that the traditional interpretation of all of them is to apply the 
doxology to Christ. 

About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt, An immense pre- 
ponderance of the Christian writers of the first eight centuries refer the word 
to Christ. This is certainly the case with Irenaeus, Haer. III. xvii. a, ed. 
Harvey; Tertullian, 4dv. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Noct. 6 (cf. 
Gifford, of. czt. p. 60); Novatian, 7y7#. 13; Cyprian, Zest. ii. 6, ed. Hartel; 
Syn. Ant. adv. Paul, Sam, in Routh, Rel. Sacrae, iii. 291, 292; Athanasius, 
Cont. Arian. I. iii. 10; Epiphanius, Haer. lvii. 2, 9, ed. Oehler; Basil, 
Adv. Eunom. iv. p. 282; Gregory of Nyssa, Ado. Eunom. 11 ; Chrysostom, 
Hom. ad Rom. xvi. 3, &c.; Theodoret; dd Rom. iv. p. 100; Augustine, De 
Trinitate, ii. 13; Hilarius, De Trinitate, viii. 37, 38; Ambrosius, De Spirits 
Sancto, i. 3. 46; Hieronymus, Zp. CX XJ. ad Algas. Qu. ix; Cyril AL, Cont. 
Zul. x. pp. 327, 328. It is true also of Origen (7# Rom. vii. 13) if we may 
trust Rufinus’ Latin translation (the subject has been discussed at length 
by Gifford, of. ezt. p. 31; Abbot, 7. B. Axeg. 1883, p. 103; WH. ad éoc.). 
Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic 
grounds. The passage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word @edés was 
given to our Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full divine 
honours, as the Gnostics of the second century and the Arians of the fourth, 
On the other hand this was a useful text to one set of heretics, the Sabellians; 
and it is significant that Hippolytus, who has to explain that the words do 
not favour Sabellianism, never appears to think of taking them in any 
other way. 

The strongest evidence against the reference to Christ is that of the leading 
uncial MSS. Of these 8 has no punctuation, A undoubtedly puts a point 
after odpxa, and also leaves a slight space. The punctuation of this chapter 
is careful, and certainly by the original hand; but as there is a similar point 
and space between Xpio7od and irép in ver. 3, a point between odpxa and 
oimwves, and another between “IopanAtra: and dy, there is no reason as far as 

punctuation is concerned why 6 dy should not refer to Xpiorés as much as 
oirwves does to ddeApGy.* B has a colon after cdpxa, but leaves no space, 
while there is a space left at the end of the verse. The present colon is 
however certainly not by the first hand, and whether it covers an earlier 
stop or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after cdpxa, The difference 
between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is certainly 
curious. 

Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence has 
been found. Origen (Rufinus) ad Joc. tells us there were certain ons 
who thought the ascription of the word «és to Christ difficult, for St. Paul 
had already called him vids @cov. The long series of extracts made by 
Wetstein ad Joc. stating that the words 6 én mavrav @eds cannot be used of 
the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not 6 ém ravraw @eés, 
but én mavtav Oeds, and some of the writers he quotes expressly interpret the 
passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyril of Alexandria (Cont. Jul. x. 
P- 327) quotes the Emperor Julian to the effect that St. Paul never calls 
Christ @cds, but although this is certainly an interesting statement, this 

assage, which Cyril quotes against him, might easily have been overlooked. 
wo writers, and two only, Photius (Cont. Man. iii. 14) and Diodorss 

* (Cramer’s Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the Father. 
The moder criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, who pointed 


* For information on this point and also on the punctuation of the older 


papyti, we are much indebted to Mr. F. G. Kenyon, of the British Museum, 


1X. 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 235 


out that there were certainly three alternative interpretations possible, and 
that as there was so much doubt about the verse it should never be ased 
against heretics. He himself wavers in his opinion, In the Commentary 
he seems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase (a later but 
popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinus, it is interesting 
to note, was convinced by the position of evAoynrds (see below) that the 
sentence must refer to Christ. From Erasmus’ time onwards opinions have 
varied, and have been influenced, as was natural, largely by the dogmatic 
opinions of the writer; and it seems hardly worth while to quote long lists of 
names on either side, when the question is one which must be decided not by 
authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language. 

The discussion which follows will be divided into three heads :— 

(1) Grammar; (2) Sequence of thought; (3) Pauline usage. 

The first words that attract our attention are 76 xaTd cdpxa, and a parallel The gram. 
naturally suggests itself with Rom. i. 3, 4. As there St. Paul describes the mar of the 
human descent from David, but expressly limits it xatd odpxa, and then passage. 
in contrast describes his Divine descent «a7d mvedpya Gyiwovvns; so here the (1) 70 xara 
course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of gépxa, 
Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by 
limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true 
nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance 
the privileges of his fellow-countrymen, and put a culminating point to his 
argument. 70 card odpra leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just 
what we should have expected in 6 dy én? ravtwy Océs. 

Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper anti- 
thesis to oap{ is mvevya. But this objection is invalid. @eds is in a con- 
siderable number of cases used in contrast to capé (Luke iii. 6; 1 Cor. i. 29 
Col. iii. 22; Philemon 16; 2 Chron. xxxii. 8; Ps. lv [vi]. 5; Jer. xvii. 5 
Dan. ii. 11; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances). 

Again it is argued that the expression 7d xard capka as opposed to nate 
odpxa precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While xa7a 
odpxa allows the expression of a contrast, 7d xatd odpxa would limit the 
idea of a sentence but would not allow the limitation to be expressed. This 
statement again is incorrect. Instances are found in which there is ap 
expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the article (see 
nee Pp- 39; he quotes Isocrates, p. 32e; Demosth. cont. Eubul. p. 1299, 

14). 

Bot although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true that 
neither watd odpxa nor 76 xatd gapxa demands an expressed antithesis 
(Rom. iv. 1; Clem. Rom. i. 32). The expression 76 xatd capxa cannot 
therefore be quoted as decisive; but probably any one reading the passage 
for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and 
would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast. 

The next words concerning which there has been much discussion are 6 dv. (3) 5 &. 
It is argued on the one hand that 6 @y is naturally relatival in character and 
equivalent to ds éo7:, and in support of this statement 2 Cor. xi. 31 is quoted: 

6 @cés kal natip Tod Kupiov “Incod oidev, 6 Sv edAoynTes eis Tovs aidvas, Ste 
ov WevSouai—a passage which is in some respects an exact parallel. On the 
other hand passages are quoted in which the words do not refer to anything 
preceding, such as Jn. iii. 31 6 avaev épydpevos éendvw Tavtwv écTiv 6 by é« 
Tis yns ek THs Hs €o7t, Kal éx THs ys AaAet: and of dvres in Rom, viii. 5, &. 
The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that 6 #y can be used in both 
ways; but it must be noticed that in the last instances the form of the 
sentence is such as to take away all ambiguity, and to compel a change of 
subject. In this case, as there is a noun immediately preceding to which the 
words would naturally refer, as there is no sign of a change of subject, and 
as there is no finite verb in the sentence following, an ordinary reader would 
consider that the words 6 dy émi mwavrav @eds refer to what precedes unless 


's) The 
pusition of 
evAoyntés. 


The con- 
nexion of 
thought. 


236 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS eS 


they smpeent so great an antithesis to his mind that he could not refer them 
to Christ. 

But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the 
N.T., of the participle dv being used with a prepositional phrase and the 
noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. If the noun is mentioned the 
substantive verb becomes unnecessary. Here 6 ém mavrav Oeds would be 
the correct expression, if @eds is the subject of the sentence; if ay is added 
©«és must become predicate. This excludes the translation (6.) ‘He who is 
God over all be (or is) blessed for ever.’ It still leaves it possible to translate 
as (c.) ‘He who is over all is God blessed for ever,’ but the reference to 
Xp.o7és remains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the 
word Oeéds suggests in itself too great a contrast. 

It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an ascription of 
blessing to the Father, the word edAoynrés would naturally come first, just 
as the word ‘ Blessed’ would in English. An examination of LXX usage 
shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward 
(as Ps. cxii [cxiii]. 2 ei7 7d Gvopa Kupiov evAoynpévov) this is almost in- 
variably its position. But the rule is clearly only an empirical one, and in 
cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is 
broken (cf. Ps. Sol. viii. 40, 41). As 6 dv én mavtow cds if it does not refer 
to 6 Xporés must be in very marked contrast with it, there would be a special 
emphasis on the words, and the perversion of the natural order becomes 
possible. These considerations prevent the argument from the position of 
evAoynTés being as decisive as some have thought it, but do not prevent the 
balance of evidence being against the interpretation as a doxology reierring 
to the Father. 

The result of an examination of the grammar of the passage makes it clear 
that if St. Paul had intended to insert an ascription of praise to the Father 
we should have expected him to write evAoynrds eis Tots aid@vas 6 én TavTraw 
@eés. If the translation (d.) suggested above, which leaves the stop at 
sdvtav, be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are avoided, 
but the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden @eds evAoynrds eis ToUs 
ei@vas make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the position 
of evAoynrés makes a doxology (6.) improbable, and the insertion of the 
participle makes it very unnatural. The grammatical evidence is in favour 
of (a.), i.e. the reference of the words to 6 Xpiords, unless the words 5 dw émi 
mdvTwy cds contain in themselves so marked a contrast that they could not 
possibly be so referred. 

We pass next to the connexion of thought. Probably not many will 
doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (@.) admirably 
suits the context. St. Paul is enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the 
highest and last privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish 
stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in order 
to emphasize this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who came 
according to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a perfectly clear 
and intelligible interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of any 
interpretation which applies the words to the Father? 

Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the words 
as a doxology, ‘ He that is over all God be blessed for ever,’ or ‘ He that is 
God over all be blessed for ever.’ A natural criticism that at once arises is, 
how awkward the sudden introduction of a doxology ! how inconsistent with 
the tone of sadness which pervades the passage! Nor do the reasons alleged 
in support of this interpretation really avoid the difficulty, It is quite true 
of course that St. Paul was full of gratitude for the privileges of his race and 
especially for the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the thought in his 
mind. His feeling is one of sadness and of failure: it is necessary for him 
to argue that the promise of God has not failed. Nor again does a reference 
to Rom. i. 25 support the interpretation. It is quste true that there we have 


1X. 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 43> 


a doxology in the midst of a passage of great sadness; but like 2 Cor. xi. 38 
that is an instance of the ordinary Rabbinic and oriental usage of adding an 
ascription of praise when the name of God has been introduced. That would 
not apply in the present case where there is no previous mention of the name 
of God. It is impossible to say that a doxology could not stand here; it is 
certainly true that it would be unnatural and out of place. 

So strongly does Dr. Kennedy feel the difficulties both exegetical and Prof. 
grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, Kennedy’s 
that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they interpreta- 
occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introduced at this tion. 
place in order to coneiliate the Jews: ‘ He who is over all is God blessed 
for ever.’ It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this 
opinion, St. Paul’s object is hardly to conciliate unbelieving Jews, but to 
solve the difficulties of believers, nor does anything occur in either the 
previous or the following verses which might be supposed to make an 
assertion of the unity of God either necessary or apposite. The inter- 
pretation fails by ascribing too great subtlety to the Apostle. 

Unless then Pauline usage makes it absolutely impossible to refer the Pauline 
expressions @eds and éxt aavtav to Christ, or to address to Him such usage. 

2 doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word (1) @«és. 
evAoynTés, the balance of probability is in favour of referring the passage 
to Him. What then is the usage of St. Paul? The question has been 
somewhat obscured on both sides by the attempt to prove that St. Paul 
could or could not have used these terms of Christ, i.e. by making the 
difficulty theological and not linguistic. St. Paul always looks upon Christ 
as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creation 
(a Cor. xi. 3; xv. 28; Phil. ii. 5-11; Col. i 13-20), and this would quite 
justify the use of the expression émi rdvrav of Him. So also if St. Paul can 
speak of Christ as efxav Tod @eov S Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15), as &v woppp Geod 
imapxav, and ica @e@ (Phil. ii. 6), he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity 
than would be implied by @eds as predicate. The question rather is this: 
was @eés so definitely used of the ‘ Father’ as a proper name that it could 
not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to 
the Father as would the word wamjpp if it were substituted? The most 
significant passage referred to is 1 Cor. xii. 4-6, where it is asserted that @eés 
is as much a proper name as «vpios or mvevyua and is used in marked distine- 
tion to «vpios. But this passage surely suggests the answer. Kupios ig 
clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Pau® 
elsewhere speaking of the Father as Kvpros, certainly in quotations from the 
O.T. and probably elsewhere (1 Cor. iii. 5), nor of Xpiorés as mvedua 
(a Cor. iii. 16). The history of the word appears to be this. To one 
brought up as a Jew it would be natural to use it of the Father alone, and 
hence complete divine prerogatives would be ascribed to the Son somewhat 
earlier than the word itself was used. But where the honour was given the 
word used predicatively would soon follow. It was habitual at the beginning 
of the second century as in the Ignatian letters, it is undoubted in St. John 
where the Evangelist is writing in his own name, it probably occurs 
Acts xx. 28 and perhaps Titusii.14. It must be admitted that we should not 
expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans; but there is no impossibility 
either in the word or the ideas expressed by the word occurring so early. 

So again with regard to doxologies and the use of the term evAoy77ds. (2) Doxo- 
The distinction between evAoyntés and evAoynpévos which it is attempted to logies ad- 
make cannot be sustained: and to ascribe a doxology to the Son would be dressed to 
a practical result of His admittedly divine nature which would gradually Christ 
show itself in language. At first the early Jewish usage would be adhered 
to; gradually as the dignity of the Messiah became realized, a change would 
take piace in the use of words. Hence we find doxologies appearing 
definitely in later books of the N.T., probably in 2 Tim. iv. 18, certainly in 


Concle- 
sion, 


238 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Ix. 6-18. 


Rev. v. 13 and 2 Pet. iii. 18. Again we can assert that we should not expect 
it in so early an Epistle as the Romans, but, as Dr. Liddon points ont, 
2 Thess. i. 12 implies it as does also Phil. ii. 5-8; and there is no reason 
why language should not at this time be beginning to adapt itself to theo- 
logical ideas already formed. 

Throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite 
conclusive, but the result of our investigations into the grammar of the 
sentence and the drift of the argument is to incline us to the belief that the 
words would naturally refer to Christ, unless Qeés is so definitely a proper 
name that it would imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that that is not 
so. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Christ, yet it 
certainly was so used at a not much later period. St. Paul’s phraseology is 
never fixed; he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these circum- 
stances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alterna- 
tive and translate ‘Of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is 
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ 


THE REJECTION O.?7 ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT 
WITH THE DIVINE PROMISES, 


IX. 6-13. For it is indeed true. With all these privileges 
Israel is yet excluded from the Messianic promises. 

Now in the first place does this imply, as has been urged, 
that the promises of God have been broken? By no means. 
The Scriptures show clearly that physical descent ts not 
enough. The children of Ishmael and the children of Esau, 
both alike descendants of Abraham to whom the promise was 
given, have been rejected. There is then no breach of the 
Divine promise, if God rejects some Israelites as He has 
vejected them. 


*Yet in spite of these privileges Israel is rejected. Now it 
has been argued: ‘ If this be so, then the Divine word has failed. 
God made a definite promise to Israel. If Israel is rejected, 
that promise is broken.’ An examination of the conditions of 
the promise show that this is not so. It was never intended 
that all the descendants of Jacob should be included in the Israel 
of privilege, "no more in fact than that all were to share the 
full rights of sons of Abraham because they were his offspring. 
Two instances will prove that this was not the Divine intention. 
Take first the words used to Abraham in Gen. xxi. 12 when he 
cast forth Hagar and her child: ‘In Isaac shall thy seed be called.’ 
These words show that although there were then two sons of 
Abraham. one only, Isaac, was selected to be the heir, through 


IX. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 239 


whom the promise was to be inherited. * And the general conclu- 
sion follows: the right of being ‘sons of God,’ i.e. of sharing that 
adoption of which we spoke above as one of the privileges of Israel, 
does not depend on the mere accident of human birth, but those 
born to inherit the promise are reckoned by God as the descendants 
to whom His words apply. * The salient feature is in fact the pro- 
mise, and not the birth; as is shown by the words used when the 
promise was given at the oak of Mamre (Gen. xviii. ro) ‘ At this 
time next year will I come and Sarah shall have a son.’ The 
promise was given before the child was born or even conceived. 
and the child was born because of the promise, not the promise 
given because the child was born. 

© A second instance shows this still more clearly. It might be 
argued in the last case that the two were not of equal parentage: 
Ishmael was the son of a female slave, and not of a lawful wife: 
in the second case there is no such defect. The two sons of 
Isaac and Rebecca had the same father and the same mother: 
moreover they were twins, born at the same time. ™ The object 
was to exhibit the perfectly free character of the Divine action, 
that purpose of God in the world which works on a principle of 
selection not dependent on any form of human merit or any con- 
vention of human birth, but simply on the Divine will as revealed 
in the Divine call; and so before they were born, before they had 
done anything good or evil, a selection was made between the two 
sons. ™From Gen. xxv. 23 we learn that it was foretold to 
Rebecca that two nations, two peoples were in her womb, and that 
the elder should serve the younger. God's action is independent 
of human birth; it is not the elder but the younger that is selected. 
#8 And the prophecy has been fulfilled. Subsequent history may 
be summed up in the words of Malachi (i. 2, 3) ‘Jacob have 
I loved, and Esau have I hated.’ 


6. The Apostle, after conciliating his readers by a short preface, 
now passes to the discussion of his theme. He has never definitely 
stated it, but it can be inferred from what he has said. The con- 
nexion in thought implied by the word é€ is rather that of passing 
to a new stage in the argument, than of sharply defined opposition 
to what has preceded. Yet there is some contrast: he sighs over 
the fall, yet that fall is not so absolute as to imply a break in God’s 


purpose. 


446 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (tesa: 


odx ofoy 8 Sn: ‘the case is not as though.’ ‘This grief of 
mine for my fellow countrymen is not to be understood as mean- 
ing.’ Lipsius. The phrase is unique: it must clearly not be 
interpreted as if it were ody oféy re, ‘it is not possible that’: for the 
te is very rarely omitted, and the construction in this case is 
always with the infinitive, nor does St. Paul want to state what 
it is impossible should have happened, but what has not happened. 
The common ellipse ody 6m affords the best analogy, and the 
phrase may be supposed to represent od rowirov 8¢ ears olov Gre, 
(Win. § Ixiv. 1. 6; E.T. p. 746.) 

éxnémruxey : ‘fallen from its place,’ i.e. perished and become of no 
effect. Sox Cor. xiii. 8 4 dydmn obSémore éxmimres (AV); James i. 11. 

& Adyos tod Geos: ‘the Word of God,’ in the sense of ‘the 
declared purpose of God,’ whether a promise or a threat or a de- 
cree looked at from the point of view of the Divine consistency. 
This is the only place in the N. T. where the phrase occurs 
in this sense; elsewhere it is used by St. Paul (2 Cor. ii. 17; 
iv. 2; 2 Tim. ii.g; Tit. ii. 5),in Heb. xiii. 7, in Apoc. i. 9; vi. 9; 
xx. 4, and especially by St. Luke in the Acts (twelve times) to 
mean ‘ the Gospel’ as preached ; once (in Mark vii. 13), it seems 
to mean the O. T. Scriptures ; here it represents the O. T. phrase 
6 Adyos Tod Kupiov: cf, Is, xxxi. 2 xai 6 Adyos adroi (i. €. rod Kupiov) ot 
pi) dOern Oi. 

ot é “lcpand: the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the 
viol "Iopand of ver. 27. 

obtot “lopand. Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. ver. 4 on ’Iopan\iras 
which is read here also by DEFG, Vulg., being a gloss to bring 
out the meaning), the “Icpayd rod Ocod of Gal. vi. 16, intended for 
the reception of the Divine promise. But St. Paul does not mean 
here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) 
from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel 
might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out 
from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants 
of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied 
in the sacred name Israel. This statement, which is the ground 
on which he contests the idea that God’s word has failed, he has 
now to prove. 

7. ob8 On. The grammatical connexion of this passage with 
the preceding is that of an additional argument; the logical con- 
nexion is that of a proof of the statement just made. St. Paul 
could give scriptural proof, in the case of descent from Abraham, 
of what he had asserted in the case of descent from Jacob, and thus 
establish his fundamental principle—that inheritance of the pro- 
mises is not the necessary result of Israelitish descent. 

onéppa ‘ABpadp. The word ozépya is used in this verse, first of 
natural seed or descent, then of seed according to the promise. 


IX 7.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 241 


Both senses occur together in Gen. xxi. 12, 13; and both are 
found elsewhere in the N. T., Gal. iii. 29 ef d€ ipcis Xprorod, dpa rod 
“ASpaap oméppa coré: Rom. xi. § ey... ék omeppatos “ABpadp. The 
nominative to the whole sentence is mdvtes of €& "Iopand. ‘The 
descendants of Israel have not all of them the legal rights of in- 
heritance from Abraham because they are his offspring by natural 
descent.’ 

&\X’. Instead of the sentence being continued in the same form 
as it began in the first clause, a quotation is introduced which com- 
pletes it in sense but not in grammar: cf. Gal. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. 
XV. 27. 

év "loadk KAnPyceTat cot omeppa: ‘in (i.e. through) Isaac will 
those who are to be your true descendants and representatives 
be reckoned,’ & (as in Col. i. 16 év ara éxticén ta mdvta) im- 
plies that Isaac is the starting-point, place of origin of the 
descendants, and therefore the agent through whom the descent 
takes place; so Matt. ix. 34 €v 7a dpxovrs tév Sapoviov: 1 Cor. vi. 2. 
oméppa (cf. Gen. xii. 77? o7mépuati cov dace mH yiv: Gen. XV. 5 ovTas 
ora TO oméppa cov) is used collectively to express the whole number 
of descendants, not merely the single son Isaac. The passage 
means that the sons of Israel did not inherit the promise made to 
Abraham because they were his offspring—there were some who 
were his offspring who had not inherited them; but they did so be- 
cause they were descendants of that one among his sons through 
whom it had been specially said that his true descendants should 
be counted. 

The quotation is taken from the LXX of Gen. xxi. 12, which 
it reproduces exactly. It also correctly reproduces both the lan- 
guage and meaning of the original Hebrew. The same passage 
is quoted in Heb. xi. 18. 

The opinion expressed in this verse is of course exactly opposite 
to the current opinion—that their descent bound Israel to God 
by an indissoluble bond. See the discussion at the end of this 
section. 

KAnOyjcetas: ‘reckoned,’ ‘considered,’ ‘counted as the true 
oméppa’; not as in ver. 11, and as it is sometimes taken here, 
‘ called,’ ‘summoned’ (see below). 


The uses of the word xaAcw are derived from two main significations, 
(1) to ‘call,’ ‘summon,’ (2) to ‘summon by name,’ hence ‘to name.’ It 
may mean (1) to ‘call aloud’ Heb. iii. 13, to ‘summon, to ‘summon to 
a banquet’ (in these senses also in the LXX), so 1 Cor. x. 27; Matt. xxil. 33 
from these is derived the technical sense of ‘calling to the kingdom.’ 
This exact usage is hardly found in the LXX, but Is. xlii. 6 (€ya Kupios 
6 @cds exddread ce ev dixarootry), Is. li. 2 (Gre eis Nv Kai éxddeca autor, 
wai ebAdynoa avTov Kal tyyamyca abrév Kai éwd7Ovva abtév) approach it. In 
this sense it is confined to the epistles of St. Paul with Hebrews and St. Peter, 
the word Randly cecarniieat all in = John and not in this sense elsewhere 


242 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Ix. 7-9. 


(although xAnrés is so used Matt. xxii. 14). The full construction is adel 
Twa eis 71, 1 Thess. ii. 12 Tod Kadobvros tas els tiv éavTod BaatAetay «al 
ééfav: but the word was early used absolutely, and so 6 xaAéw of God (so 
Rom. iv. 17; viii. 30; ix. 11, 24). The technical use of the term comes out 
most strongly in 1 Cor. wi and in the derived words (see on «#Anrés 
Rom. i. 1, 7). (2) In the second group of meanings the ordinary con- 
struction is with a double accusative, Acts xiv. 12 éxdAouv re Tov BapydéBay 
Aia (so Rom. ix. 25, and constantly in LXX), or with dévéyart, émt 7O 
évépart as Luke i. 59, 61, although the Hebraism xadécovm 7d dvopa 

*Eupavound (Matt. i. 23) occurs. But to ‘call by name’ has associations 
derived on the one side from the idea of calling over, reckoning, accounting; 
hence such phrases as Rom. ix. 7 (from Gen. xxi. 12 LXX), and on the other 
from the idea of affection suggested by the idea of calling by name, so 
Rom. ix. 26 (from LXX Hos. ii. 1[i. 10]). These derivative uses of the word 
occur independently both in Greek, where «é«Anpa: may be used to mean 
little more than ‘to be,’ and in Hebrew. The two main meanings can always 
be distinguished, but probably in the use of the word each has influenced 
the other; when God is said to be ‘He that calls us’ the primary idea is 
clearly that of invitation, but the secondary idea of ‘calling by name,’ i.e. 
of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested. 


8. toir’ gor. From this instance we may deduce a general 
principle. 

Ta téxva THS capKés: Libert guos corporis vis genueritt. Fri. 

tékva Tod Geod: bound to God by all those ties which have been 
the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race. 

7a Tékva THS EmayyeNtas: liber? guos Det promissum procreavit. Fri. 
Cf. Gal. iv. 23 aX’ 6 pév ex tis madiokns Kata odpKa yeyevynrat, 6 Se ex 
tis edevbepas Ov erayyehias: 28 npeis d¢, ddedoi, xara "IoaaK émayyeAias 
Tekva écper. 

All these expressions (rékva rod ©cov, réxva ths émayyeAlas) are 
used elsewhere of Christians, but that is not their meaning in this 
passage. St. Paul is concerned in this place to prove not that 
any besides those of Jewish descent might inherit the promises, but 
merely that not all of Jewish descent necessarily and for that very 
reason must enjoy all the privileges of that descent. Physical con- 
nexion with the Jewish stock was not in itself a ground for inherit- 
ing the promise. That was the privilege of those intended when 
the promise was first spoken, and who might be considered to be born 
of the promise. This principle is capable of a far more universal 
application, an application which is made in the Epistle to the 
Galatians (iii. 29; iv. 28, &c.), but is not made here. 

9. émayycAias must be the predicate of the sentence thrown 
forward in order to give emphasis and to show where the point 
of the argument lies. ‘This word is one of promise,’ i.e. if 
you refer to the passage of Scripture you will see that Isaac was 
the child of promise, and not born xara odpxa; his birth therefore 
depends upon the promise which was in fact the efficient cause of 
it, and not the promise upon his birth. And hence is deduced 
a general law: a mere connexion with the Jewish race xara cdpxa 


IX. 9-11] THE UNBELEF OF ISRAEL 243 


does not necessarily implys share in the éayyeNia, for it did not 
according to the original onditions. 

kata Tév katpov TodTe €AcUoouat, Kat Eorat Ty Edppa vids. St. Paul 
combines Gen. xviiiso (LXX) ewavactpépar Ew mpds o€ Kata Tov 
Katpov rovroy cis &pa, Kai e£et vidy Zappa y yun cov: and 14 (LXX) 
eis Tov Kaipov TovTo-avaoTpey@ mpos cé cis Spas, Kai Eora TH Sdppg vids. 
The Greek texts a semewhat free translation of the Hebrew, but 
St. Paul’s dedutions from the passage are quite in harmony with 
both its word’and its spirit. 

kata Toy a.poy TodToy is shown clearly by the passage in Genesis 
to mean ‘at this time in the following year,’ i.e. when a year is 
accomplshed; but the words have little significance for St. Paul: 
they ae merely a reminiscence of the passage he is quoting, 
and ir the shortened form in which he gives them, the meaning, 
withaut reference to the original passage, is hardly clear. 

16. ob pdvoy S€: see on v. 3, introducing an additional or even 
strmger proof or example. ‘You may find some flaw in the 
pEvious argument; after all Ishmael was not a fully legitimate 
mild like Isaac, and it was for this reason (you may say) that the 
sons of Ishmael were not received within the covenant; the in- 
stance that I am now going to quote has no defect of this sort, 
and it will prove the principle that has been laid down still more 
clearly.’ 

. GAG nat “PeBéxna, x.7.X.: the sentence beginning with these words 
is never finished grammatically; it is interrupted by the parenthesis 
in ver. II pyre yap yenbevrav... Kadodvtos, and then continued 
With the construction changed; cf. v.12, 18; 1 Tim. i. 3. 

é€ évés are added to emphasize the exactly similar birth of the 
two sons. The mother’s name proves that they have one mother, 
these words show that the father too was the same. There are 
none of the defective conditions which might be found in the case of 
Isaac and Ishmael. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. (Hom. in Rom. xvi. p. 610) 
9 yap “PeBexxa kai porn TO “Ioaak yéyove yury, Kai dvo tréxovca maidas, éx 
rod “Ioade ézexev audorepous* GAX’ Spas of texbevres Tov aiTov maTpos 
Grtes, THS av’TAS pNTpds, Tas av’tas AVoavTEs @divas, Kai GuoTarptos ovTEes Kal 
Gpopnrpiot, Kal mpos TovTots Kat Sidvpat, ov TaV aiTav amyAaucay 

Koimmy €xouca: ‘having conceived’; cf. Fri. ad Joc. 

Tol tatpés jpav: ‘the ancestor of the Jewish race.’ St. Paul is 
here identifying himself with the Jews, ‘his kinsmen according to 
the flesh.’ The passage has no reference to the composition of the 
Roman community. 

11. pyme ydp, «.1.A. In this verse a new thought is introduced, 
connected with but not absolutely necessary for the subject under 
discussion. The argument would be quite complete without it. 
St. Paul has only to prove that to be of Jewish descent did not in 
itself imply a right to inherit the promise. That Esau was re- 


™! 
> 


N\ . 
244 EPISTLE TU. THE ROMANS (tx 1 


jected and Jacob chosen is quite s@icient to establish this. But 
the instance suggests another point which was in the Apostle’s 
mind, and the change in construction bows that a new difficulty, 
or rather another side of the question—therelation of these events 
to the Divine purpose—has come forward. : is because he desires 
to bring in this point that he breaks off the preious sentence. The 
yép then, as so often, refers to something latet in the Apostle’s 
mind, which leads him to introduce his new poini and is explained 
by the sentence ta ... pévn, ‘and this incident shows also the 
absolute freedom of the Divine election and purpoe, for it was 
before the children were born that the choice was mde and de- 
clared.’ 

pymw ...pydSé: ‘although they were not yet born norjad done 
anything good or evil.’ The subjective negative shows hat the 
note of time is introduced not merely as an historical fact Sut as 
one of the conditions which must be presumed in estimatig 
significance of the event. The story is so well known thé the 
Apostle is able to put first without explanation the facts wiich 
show the point as he conceives it. 

iva... pévp. What is really the underlying principle of the 
action is expressed as if it were its logical purpose; for St. Paul 
represents the events as taking place in the way they did in order 
to illustrate the perfect freedom of the Divine purpose. 

H kat éxdoyhy mpd0ects tod Oeod: ‘the Divine purpose which 
has worked on the principle of selection.’ These words are the 
key to chaps. ix—xi and suggest the solution of the problem before 
St. Paul. mpdéeors is a technical Pauline term occurring although 
not frequently in the three later groups of Epistles: Rom. viii. 28; 
ix. 11; Eph. i. 10, 11 év aire, év @ Kai exAnpabnper, mpoopicbevres Kare 
mpoGeow Tov Ta Tava evepyovvTos Kata THY BovAny tov OeAnparos auTOU: 
iii. 11 kara mpdOcow tov aiaver hy éroingey ev TH X. ‘1. TO Kupio pov: 


2 Tim, i. 9 rod odoavros jas Kal kadécavros KAnoe ayia, ov eaTa Ta. 


épya Hudv, dAda kar’ idiav mpdbecev kai xdpw: the verb also is found 
once in the same sense, Eph. i. 9 xara riv evdoxiay airov, ny mpe 
é6ero €v ait. From Aristotle onwards mpdéeors had been used to 
express purpose; with St. Paul it is the ‘ Divine purpose of God for 
the salvation of mankind,’ the ‘ purpose of the ages’ determined in 
the Divine mind before the creation of the world. The idea is 
apparently expressed elsewhere in the N. T. by BovAn (Luke vii. 30; 
Acts ii. 23; iv. 28; xx. 27) which occurs once in St. Paul (Eph. i, 
11), but no previous instance of the word mpdécors in this sense 
seems to be quoted. The conception is worked out by the Apostle 
with greater force and originality than by any previous writer, and 
hence he needs a new word to express it. See further the longer 
note on St. Paul’s Philosophy of History, p. 342. ¢kAoyy ex- 
presses an essentially OQ. T. idea (see below) but was itself a new 


IX.11,12.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 245 


word, the only instances quoted in Jewish literature earlier than 
this Epistle being from the Psalms of Solomon, which often show 
an approach to Christian theological language. It means (1) 
‘the process of choice,’ ‘election.’ Ps. Sol. xviii. 6 xaOapica 6 Gcds 
"IapayA eis nuépav éA€ov ev evdoyia, eis tucpav exdoyys €v dvdger Xpiorod 
avrod; ix. 7; Jos. B. J. IL. viii. 14; Acts ix. 15; Rom. xi. 5, 28; 
1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Pet.i. 10. In this sense it may be used of man’s 
election of his own lot (as in Josephus and perhaps in Ps. Sol. 
ix, 7), but in the N. T. it is always used of God’s election. (2) As 
abstract for concrete it means éxdexroit, those who are chosen, 
Rom. xi. 7. (3) In Aquila Is. xxii. 7 ; Symmachus and Theodo- 
tion, Is. xxxvii. 24, it means ‘the choicest,’ being apparently em- 
ployed to represent the Hebrew idiom. 

pévy: the opposite to éxmémraxev (ver. 6): the subjunctive shows 
that the principles which acted then are still in force. 

ovk é& Epywv GAN Ex Tod Kadodvtos. These words qualify the 
whole sentence and are added to make more clear the absolute 
character of God’s free choice. 

We must notice (1) that St. Paul never here says anything about 
the principle on which the call is made; all he says is that it is not 
the result of épya. We have no right either with Chrysostom 
(ia havrg dyat rod Gcod 7 exAoyn 7 KaTa mpdbeow Kai TPSyvwow yevoper) 
to read into the passage foreknowledge or to deduce from the 
passage an argument against Divine foreknowledge. The words 
are simply directed against the assumption of human merit. And 
(2) nothing is said in this passage about anything except ‘election’ 
or ‘calling’ to the kingdom. ‘The gloss of Calvin dum alos ad 
salultem praedestinat, alios ad aeternam damnationem is nowhere 
implied in the text. 

So Gore (Studia Biblica, iii. p. 44) ‘The absolute election of 
Jacob,—the “loving” of Jacob and the “hating” of Esau,—has 
reference simply to the election of one to higher. privileges as head 
of the chosen race, than the other. It has nothing to do with their 
eternal salvation. In the original to which St. Paul is referring, 
Esau is simply a synonym for Edom.’ 


adAov is the reading of the RV. and modem editors with NAB, a few 
minuscules, and Orig. «axév which occurs in TR. with DF GKL etc. and 
Fathers after Chrysostom was early substituted for the less usual word. 
A similar change has been made in 2 Cor. v. Io. 

For the mpdQeors tod Ocod of the RV. the TR. reads rod Geot mpddects with 
‘the support of only a few minuscules. 


12. 6 peifoy «.7.A. The quotation is made accurately from the 
LXX of Gen. xxv. 23 kai cime Kipuos airy Avo eOvn ev tH yaorpi cov 
eiowv, kat Ovo Aaol ék THs KOLAias Gov SiactaAnoovrat® Kai Aads Aaod vrepEetet, 
kai 6 pei{ov dovrevoer tH eAdooon (cf. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 
p- 163). God's election or rejection of the founder of the race is 


246 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[IX. 12, 18 


part of the process by which He elects or rejects the race. In 
either case the choice has been made independently of merits either 
of work or of ancestry. Both were of exactly the same descent, and 
the choice was made before either was born. 

& peiLov ... 79 é\dooon: ‘the elder,’ ‘the younger.’ This 
use of the words seems to be a Hebraism; see Gen. x. 21 «al ro 
Typ eyernOn . .. APH "IlaeO rod peifuvos: ib. xxix. 16 dvopa rH pei~ou 
Aeia, kai dvoya tH vewrépa ‘PayyA. But the dictionaries quote in 
support of the use Skmiwv 6 péeyas Pol. XVIIL. xviii. 9. The 
instances quoted of pixpés (Mk. xv. 40; Mt. xviii. 6, 10, 14, &Cc.) 
are all equally capable of being explained of stature. 

13. tov “lak®B jydwnoa, tov Sé “Hood épionoa. St. Paul con- 
cludes his argument by a second quotation taken freely from the 
LXX of Mal. i. 2, 3 ovx adehpis jv Hoad rod "IlakoB ; A€yer Kupsos* was 
nyamnoa Toy “laxwB, tov 6€ "Head epionaoa. 

What is the exact object with which these words are introduced? 
(x1) The greater number of commentators (so Fri. Weiss Lipsius), 
consider that they simply give the explanation of God’s conduct. 
‘God chose the younger brother and rejected the elder not from 
any merit on the part of the one or the other, but simply because 
He loved the one and hated the other.’ The aorists then refer to 
the time before the birth of the two sons; there is no reference to 
the peoples descended from either of them, and St. Paul is repre- 
sented as vindicating the independence of the Divine choice in 
relation to the two sons of Isaac. 

(2) This explanation has the merit of simplicity, but it is prot 
ably too simple. (i) In the first place, it is quite clear that St. 
Paul throughout has in his mind in each case the descendants as 
well as the ancestors, the people who are chosen and rejected as 
well as the fathers through whom the choice is made (cf. ver. 7). 
In fact this is necessary for his argument. He has to justify God's 
dealing, not with individuals, but with the great mass of Jews who 
have been rejected. (ii) Again, if we turn to the original contexts 
of the two quotations in wv. 12, 13 there can be no doubt that in 
both cases there is reference not merely to the children but to their 
descendants. Gen. xxv. 23 ‘Two nations are in thy womb, and two 
peoples shall be separated even from thy bowels;’ Mal. i. 3 ‘ But 
Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his 
heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas Zdom saith,’ 
&c. There is nothing in St. Paul’s method of quotation which could 
prevent him from using the words in a sense somewhat different 
from the original; but when the original passage in both cases is 
really more in accordance with his method and argument, it is 
more reasonable to believe that he is not narrowing the sense. 
(iii) As will become more apparent later, St. Paul’s argument is to 
show that throughout God’s action there is running a ‘ purpose 


IX. 18.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 247 


according to election.” He does not therefore wish to say that it 
is merely God’s love or hate that has guided Him. 

Hence it is better to refer the words, either directly or in- 
directly, to the choice of the nation as well as the choice of the 
founder (so Go. Gif. Liddon). But a further question still remains 
as to the use of the aorist. We may with most commentators 
still refer it to the original time when the choice was made: 
when the founders of the nations were in the womb, God chose 
one nation and rejected another because of his love and hatred. 
But it is really better to take the whole passage as corroborating the 
previous verse by an appeal to history. ‘God said the elder shall 
serve the younger, and, as the Prophet has shown, the whole of sub= 
sequent history has been an illustration of this. Jacob God has 
selected for His love; Esau He has hated: He has given his moun- 
tains for a desolation and his heritage to the jackals.’ 

jydmoa...éuionoa. There is no need to soften these words 
as some have attempted, translating ‘loved more’ and ‘loved less.’ 
They simply express what had been as a matter of fact and was 
always looked upon by the Jews as God’s attitude towards the two 
nations. So Zhanchuma, p. 32. 2 (quoted by Wetstein, ii. 438) Zu 
invenies omnes transgressiones, guas odit Deus S. B. fuisse in Esavo. 


How very telling would be the reference to Esau and Edom an acquaint- 
ance with Jewish contemporary literature will show. Although in Dent. xxiii. 7 
it was said ‘Thon shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother,’ later 
events had obliterated this feeling of kinship ; or perhaps rather the feeling of 
relationship had exasperated the bitterness which the hostility of the two 
nations had aroused. At any rate the history is one of continuous hatred on 
both sides. So in Ps, exxxvii. 7 and in the Greek Esdras the burning of the 
temple is ascribed to the Edomites (see also Obadiah and Jer. xlix. 7-22). 
Two extracts from Apocryphal works will exhibit this hatred most clearly. 
In Z£noch \xxxix. 11-12 (p. 233, ed. Charles) the patriarchal history is 
symbolized by different animals: ‘ But that white bull (Abraham) which was 
born amongst them begat a wild ass (Ishmael) and a white bull with it 
(Isaac), and the wild ass multiplied. But that bull which was born from 
him begat a black wild boar (Esau) and a white sheep (Jacob); and that 
wild boar begat many boars, but that sheep begat twelve sheep.’ Here 
Esau is represented by the most detested of animals, the pig. So in 
Jubilees xxxvii. 22 sq. (trans. Charles) the following speech is characteristi- 
cally put into the mouth of Esau: ‘And thou too (Jacob) dost hate me and 
my children for ever, and there is no observing the tie of brotherhood with 
thee. Hear these words which I declare unto thee: if the boar can change 
its skin and make its bristles as soft as wool: or if it can cause horns to 
sprout forth on its head like the horns of a stag or of a sheep, then I will 
observe the tie of brotherhood with thee, for since the twin male offspring 
were separated from their mother, thou hast not shown thyself a brother to 
me. And if the wolves make peace with the lambs so as not to devour or 
rob them, and if their hearts turn towards them to do good, then there will 
be peace in my heart towards thee. And if the lion becomes the friend of 
the ox, and if he is bound under one yoke with him and ploughs with him 
and makes peace with him, then I will make peace with thee. And when 
the raven becomes white as the raza (a large white bird), then I know that 


248 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ix. 6-18. 


T shall love thee and make peace with thee. Thou shalt be rooted out and 
thy son shall be rooted out and there shall be no peace for thee.’ (See also 
Jos. Bell. Jud. 1V.iv.1,2; Hausrath, New Testament Times, vol. i. pp. 67, 68, 
Eng. Traus.) 


The Divine Election. 


St. Paul has set himself to prove that there was nothing in the 
promise made to Abraham, by which God had ‘ pledged Himself to 
Israel’ (Gore, Studia Biblica, iii. 40), and bound Himself to allow all 
‘hose who were Abraham’s descendants to inherit these promises. He 
proves this by showing that in two cases, as was recognized by the 
Jews themselves, actual descendants from Abraham had been ex- 
cluded. Hence he deduces the general principle, ‘There was from 
the first an element of inscrutable selectiveness in God’s dealings 
within the race of Abraham’ (Gore, #d.). The inheritance of the 
promise is for those whom God chooses, and is not a necessary 
privilege of natural descent. The second point which he raises, 
that this choice is independent of human merit, he works out 
further in the following verses. 

On the main argument it is sufficient at present to notice that it 
was primarily an argumentum ad hominem and as such was abso- 
lutely conclusive against those to whom it was addressed. The 
Jews prided themselves on being a chosen race; they prided them- 
selves especially on having been chosen while the Ishmaelites and 
the Edomites (whom they hated) had been rejected. St. Paul 
analyzes the principle on which the one race was chosen and the 
other rejected, and shows that the very same principles would 
perfectly justify God’s action in further dealing with it. God might 
choose some of them and reject others, just as he had originally 
chosen them and not the other descendants of Abraham. 

That this idea of the Divine Evection was one of the most funda- 
mental in the O.T. needs no illustration. We find it in the 
Pentateuch, as Deut. vii. 6 ‘For thou art an holy people unto the 
Lord, thy God: the Lord, thy God, hath chosen thee to be a 
peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are on the face 
of the earth :’ in the Psalms, as Ps. cxxxv. 4 ‘For the Lord hath 
chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure’: in 
the Prophets, as Is. xli. 8, 9 ‘But thou Israel, my servant, Jacob 
whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend; thou whom 
I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth and called thee 
from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, 
I have chosen thee and not cast thee away.’ And this idea of 
Israel being the elect people of God is one of those which were 
seized and grasped most tenaciously by contemporary Jewish 


thought. But between the conception as held by St. Paul's con- 


rx. 6-13.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 24g 


temporaries and the O.T. there were striking differences In the 
O. T. it is always looked upon as an act of condescension and love 
of God for Israel, it is for this reason that He redeemed them from 
bondage, and purified them from sin (Deut. vii. 8; x. 15; Is. xliv. 
21,22); although the Covenant is specified it is one which involves 
obligations on Israel (Deut. vii. 9, &c.): and the thought again and 
again recurs that Israel has thus been chosen not merely for their 
own sake but as an instrument in the hand of God, and not merely 
to exhibit the Divine power, but also for the benefit of other nations 
(Gen. xii. 3; Is. Ixvi. 18, &c.). But among the Rabbis the idea of 
Election has lost all its higher side. It is looked on as a covenant 
by which God is bound and over which He seems to have no control. 
Israel and God are bound in an indissoluble marriage (Shemoth 
rabba \. 51): the holiness of Israel can never be done away with, 
even although Israel sin, it still remains Israel (Sanhedrin 55): the 
worst Israelite is not profane like the heathen (Bammidbar rabbat7): 
no Israelite can go into Gehenna (Peszk/a 38 a): all Israelites have 
their portion in the world to come (Sanhedrin 1), and much more 
to the same effect. (See Weber Alésyn. Theol. p. 51, &c., to whom 
are due most of the above references.) 

And this belief was shared by St. Paul’s contemporaries. ‘ The 
planting of them is rooted for ever: they shall not be plucked out 
ail the days of the heaven: for the portion of the Lord and the 
inheritance of God is Israel’ (Ps. Sol. xiv. 3); ‘ Blessed art thou of 
ine Lord, O Israel, for evermore’ (zd. viii. 41) ; ‘ Thou didst choose 
the seed of Abraham before all the nations, and didst set thy name 
before us, O Lord: and thou wilt abide among us for ever’ (2d. ix. 
17,18). While Israel is always to enjoy the Divine mercy, sinners, 
i.e. Gentiles, are to be destroyed before the face of the Lord 
(2B. xii. 7, 8). So again in 4 Ezra, they have been selected while 
Esau has been rejected (iii. 16). And this has not been done as part 
of any larger Divine purpose; Israel is the end of the Divine action ; 
for Israel the world was created (vi. 55); it does not in any way 
exist for the benefit of other nations, who are of no account; they 
are as spittle, as the dropping from a vessel (vi. 55, 56). More 
instances might be quoted (_/udzlees xix. 16; xxii. 9; Apoc. Baruch 
xlviii. 20, 23; Ixxvii. 3), but the above are enough to illustrate the 
position St. Paul is combating. The Jew believed that his race 
was joined to God by a covenant which nothing could dissolve, 
and that he and his people alone were the centre of all God’s 
action in the creation and government of the world. 

This idea St. Paul combats. But it is important to notice how 
the whole of the O.T. conception is retained by him, but 
broadened and illuminated. Educated as a Pharisee, he had 
held the doctrine of election with the utmost tenacity. He had 
believed that his own nation had been chosen from among all the 


250 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[IX. 14-29. 


kingdoms of the earth. He still holds the doctrine, but the 
Christian revelation has given 'a meaning to what had béen a nar- 
row privilege, and might seem an arbitrary choice. His view is 
now widened. The world, not Israel, is the ‘final end of God’s 
action. This is the key to the explanation of the great ‘difficulty 
the rejection of Israel. Already in the words that he has used 
above 9 xar’ ex\oyiy mpdbeots he has shown the principle ‘which he 
is working out. The mystéry which had been hidden from the 
foundation of the world has been revealed (Rom. xvi. 26). There 
is still a Divine ékAoy#, but'it is now realized that this is ‘the ‘result 
of a zpééeots, a universal Divine purpose which had worked through 
the ages on the principle of election, which was now beginning to 
be ‘revealed and understood, and which St, Paul will explain and 
vindicate in the chapters that follow (cf. Eph. i. 4, 113 iii. rr). 

We shall follow St. Paul in his argument as he gradually works 
it out. Meanwhile it is convenient to remember the exact point he 
has reached. He has shown that God has not been ‘untrue to any 
promise in making a selection from among the Israel of his own 
day; He ‘is only acting on the principle He followed in selecting 
the Israelites and rejecting the Edomites and Ishmaelites. By the 
introduction of the phrase 9 kar’ ékdoyjv mpdbecrs St. Paul has also 
suggested ae lines on which his argument will proceed, 


THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT INCONSISTENT 
WITH THE DIVINE JUSTICE. 


IX. 14-29. But secondly it may be urged: * Surely then 
God is unjust’ No, if you turn to the Scriptures you will 


see that He has the right to confer His favours on whom He 
will (as He did on Moses) or to withhold them (as He did 
Jrom Pharaoh) (vv. 14-18). 

If it is further urged, Why blame me if I like Pharaoh 
reject God's offer, and thus fulfil His will? I reply, It is 
your part not to cavil but to submit. The creature may not 
complain against the Creator, any more than the vessel 
against the potter (vv.19-21). Still less when God’s purpose 
has been so beneficent, and that to a body so mixed as this 
Christian Church of ours, chosen not only from the Fews but 
also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24) ;—as indeed was foretold 


(vv. 25-29). 


a 


IX. 14-20.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 251 


“But there is a second objection which may be raised. ‘If 
what. you say is. true that God rejects one and accepts another 
apart from either privilege of birth or human merit, is not His 
conduct. arbitrary and unjust?’ What answer. shall we make to 
this? Surely there is no injustice with God. Heaven forbid that 
Ishould say so. [am only laying down clearly the absolute character 
of the Divine sovereignty. ™ The Scripture has shown us clearly 
the principles of Divine action in two typical and opposed incidents: 
that of..Moses exhibiting the Divine grace, that of Pharaoh ex- 
hibiting the Divine severity. Take the case of Moses. When he 
demanded a sign of the Divine favour, the Lord said (Ex. xxxiii. 
17-19) ‘Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by 
name... I will.make all my goodness pass before thee ; I will be 
gracious. to. whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on 
whom I will show mercy.’ ** These words imply that grace comes 
to.man not because he is determined to attain it, not because he 
exerts himself for it as an athlete in the races, but because he has 
found favour in God’s sight, and God shows mercy towards him: 
they prove in fact the perfect spontaneousness of God’s action. 
* So in the case of Pharaoh. The Scripture (in Ex. ix. 16) tells us 
that at the time of the plagues of Egypt these words were ad- 
dressed to him: ‘I have given thee thy. position and place, that 
I may show forth in thee my power, and that my name might be 
declared in all the earth.’ ™ Those very Scriptures then to which 
you. Jews so often and so confidently appeal, show the absolute 
character of God’s dealings with men. Both the bestowal of mercy 
or favour and the hardening of the human heart depend alike upon 
the Divine will. 

% But this leads. to a third objection. If man’s destiny be 
simply the result of God’s purpose, if his hardness of heart is 
a state which God Himself causes, why does God find fault? His 
will is being accomplished. There is no resistance being offered. 
Obedience or disobedience is equally the result of His purpose. 
*°Such questions should never be asked. Consider. what is in- 
volved in your position as man. A man’s relation to God is such 
that whatever God does the man has no right to complain or object 
or reply. The Scriptures have again and again represented the 
relation of God to man under the image of a potter and the 


252 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [IX. 20-29. 


vessels that he makes. Can you conceive (to use the words of 
the prophet Isaiah) the vessel saying to its maker: ‘Why did you 
make me thus?’ *™ The potter has complete control over the lump 
of clay with which he works, he can make of it one vessel for an 
honourable purpose, another for a dishonourable purpose. This 
exactly expresses the relation of man to his Maker. God has 
made man, made him from the dust of the earth. He has as 
absolute control over His creature as the potter has. No man 
before Him has any right, or can complain of injustice. He is 
absolutely in God’s hands. ™ This is God’s sovereignty; even 
if He had been arbitrary we could not complain. But what 
becomes of your talk of injustice when you consider how He has 
acted? Although a righteous God would desire to exhibit the 
Divine power and wrath in a world of sin; even though He were 
dealing with those who were fit objects of His wrath and had 
become fitted for destruction; yet He bore with them, full of long- 
suffering for them, **and with the purpose of showing all the wealth 
of His glory on those who are vessels deserving His mercy, whom 
as we have already shown He has prepared even from the 
beginning, *a mercy all the greater when it is remembered that 
we whom He has called for these privileges are chosen not only 
from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles, Gentiles who were 
bound to Him by no covenant. Surely then there has been no 
injustice but only mercy. 

2 And remember finally that this Divine plan of which you 
complain is just what the prophets foretold. They prophesied the 
calling of the Gentiles. Hosea (i. 10, and ii. 23) described how 
those who were not within the covenant should be brought into it 
and called by the very name of the Jews under the old Covenant, 
‘the people of God,’ ‘the beloved of the Lord,’ ‘the sons of the 
living God.’ ™ And this wherever throughout the whole world 
they had been placed in the contemptuous position of being, as he 
expressed it, ‘no people.’ % Equally do we find the rejection of 
Israel—all but a remnant of it—foretold. Isaiah (x. 22) stated, 
‘Even though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand 
of the seashore, yet it is only a remnant that shall be saved, * for 
a sharp and decisive sentence will the Lord execute upon the earth.’ 
® And similarly in an earlier chapter (i. g) he had foretold the com- 


IX. 14, 15.] _ THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 253 


plete destruction of Israel with the exception of a small remnant: 
‘Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have 
been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.’ 


14-29. St. Paul now states for the purpose of refutation a 
possible objection. He has just shown that God chooses men 
independently of their works according to His own free determina- 
tion, and the deduction is implied that He is free to choose or 
reject members of the chosen race. The objection which may be 
raised is, ‘if what you say is true, God is unjust,’ and the argument 
would probably be continued, ‘we know God is not unjust, there- 
fore the principles laid down are not true.’ In answer, St. Paul 
shows that they cannot be unjust or inconsistent with God’s action, 
for they are exactly those which God has declared to be His in those 
very Scriptures on which the Jews with whom St. Paul is arguing 
would especially rely. 

14. ti ody epodpev; see on iii, 5, a very similar passage: ef 3¢ 4 
adixia nav Geod Stxatocvynv ouvictnos, Ti épodpev; py AdiKos 6 Oeds 
6 émbépwv ty opynv; ... py yevorro. The expression is used as 
always to introduce an objection which is stated only to be 
refuted. 

py: implying that a negative answer may be expected, as in 
the instance just quoted. 

wapato Geo. Cf. ii. 11 ov yap dott mpocwrodnia mapa Ta Ceg 
Eph. vi. 9; Prov. viii. 30, of Wisdom dwelling with God, jury» 
Tap avtT@ appofouca. 

pry yévorro. Cf. iii. 4. The expression is generally used as here 
to express St. Paul’s horror at an objection ‘which he has stated 
for the purpose of refutation and which is blasphemous in itself or 
one that his opponent would think to be such.’ 

15-19. According to Origen, followed by many Fathers and 
some few modern commentators, the section vv. 15-19 contains 
not St. Paul’s own words, but a continuation of the objection put 
into the mouth of his opponent, finally to be refuted by the 
indignant disclaimer of ver. 20. Such a construction which was 
adopted in the interest of free-will is quite contrary to the structure 
of the sentence and of the argument. In every case in which py 
yévorre occurs it is followed by an answer to the objection direct or 
indirect. Moreover if this had been the construction the inter- 
rogative sentence would not have been introduced by the particle 
pn expecting a negative answer, but would have been in a form 
which would suggest an affirmative reply. 

15. T yap Mwox Adyer. The ydp explains and justifies the 
strong denial contained in py yévorro, Too much stress must not 
be laid on the emphasis given to the name by its position; yet it is 
obvious that the instance chosen adds considerably to the strength 


254 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS __ [IX. 16, 16. 


of the argument. Moses, if any one, might be considered to have 
deserved God’s mercy, and the name ‘of Moses would be that most 
respected by St. Paul’s opponents. A¢yee without a nominative for 
@eds Aéyee is a common idiom in quotations (cf. Rom. xv. 10; 
Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8; v. 14). 

€dejow ov Gy ded, «.7.4: ‘I will have mercy on whomsoever 
I have mercy.’ The emphasis is on the éy dy, and the words are 
quoted to mean that as it is God who has made the offer of salva- 
tion to men, it is for Him to choose who are to be the recipients of 
His grace, and not for man to dictate to Him. The quotation is 
from the LXX of Ex. xxxiii. 19 which is accurately reproduced. 
It is a fairly accurate translation of the original, there being only 
a slight change in the tenses. The Hebrew is ‘I am gracious to 
whom I will be gracious,’ the LXX ‘I will be gracious to whom- 
soever I am gracious.’ But St. Paul uses the words with a some- 
what different emphasis. Moses had said, ‘ Show me, I pray thee, 
thy glory.’ And He said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before 
thee, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee: and 
I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy 
on whom I will show mercy.’ The point of the words in the 
original context is rather the certainty of the Divine grace for those 
whom God has selected ; the point which St. Paul wishes to prove 
is the independence and freedom of the Divine choice. 

éXejow ... oixretpyow. The difference between these words 
seems to be something the same as that between Avmm and odvvy in 
ver, 2. The first meaning ‘compassion,’ the second ‘distress’ or 
‘pain,’ such as expresses itself in outward manifestation. (Cf. 
Godet, ad loc.) 

16. dpa ody introduces as an inference from the special instance 
given the general principle of God’s method of action. Cf. ver. 8 
tout’ €orw, Ver. 11 iva, where the logical method in each case is the 
same although the form of expression is different. 

tod Oédovtos, k.t.A. ‘God’s mercy is in the power not of human 
desire or human effort, but of the Divine compassion itself.’ The geni- 
tives are dependent on the idea of mercy deduced from the previous 
verse. With 6édovros may be compared Jo. i. 12, 13 €daxev avrois 
e€ovoiay rexva Ceod yeréobat... ot ovx e& aiuarwy, ovdé ek OeAjparos 
capkéds, ovdé ex OeAnuaros avdpds, GAN’ éx Geod eyernOncav. The meta- 
phor of tod tpéxovros is a favourite one with St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. 
24, 26; Phil. ii. 16; Gal. ii. 2; v. 7). 

In wv. 7-13 St. Paul might seem to be dealing with families or 
groups of people; here however he is distinctly dealing with in- 
dividuals and lays down the principle that God’s grace does not 
necessarily depend upon anything but God’s will. ‘Not that 
I have not reasons to do it, but that I need not, in distributing of 
mercies which have no foundation in the merits of men, render 


TX. 16,17.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 255 


any other reason or motive but mine own will, whereby I may do 
what I will with mine own.’ Hammond, 

The MSS. vary curiously in the orthography of éAecw, dcdw. In ver. 16 
SABDEFG support éAcdw (Acdvytos), BSK &e. édeéw (éAcodvTos); in 
ver. 18 the position is reversed, é\edm (éAe@) having only DFG in its 
favour; in Jude 22 éAedw (éAeGre) is supported by NB alone. See WH. 
Lntrod. ii, App. p. 166. 

17. déyet yap 4 ypady: ‘and as an additional proof showing 
that the principle just enunciated (in ver. 16) is true not merely in 
an instance of God’s mercy, but also of His severity, take the 
language which the Scripture tells us was addressed to Pharaoh.’ 
On the form of quotation cf. Gal. iii. 8, 22; there was probably no 
reason for the change of expression from ver. 15; both were well- 
known forms used in quoting the O. T. and both could be used 
indifferently. 

7T ¢apas. The selection of Moses suggested as a natural 
contrast that of his antagonist Pharaoh. In God’s dealings with 
these two individuals, St. Paul finds examples of His dealings with 
the two main classes of mankind. 

eis atTS Toro, x.7.A.: taken with considerable variations, which in 
some cases seem to approach the Hebrew, from the LXX of Ex. ix. 
16 (see below). The quotation is taken from the words which Moses 
was directed to address to Pharaoh after the sixth plague, that of 
boils. ‘For now I had put forth my hand and smitten thee and 
thy people with pestilence, and thou hadst been cut off from the 
earth; but in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand, 
for to show thee my power, and that my name may be declared 
throughout all the earth.” The words in the original mean that 
God has prevented Pharaoh from being slain by the boils in order 
that He might more completely exhibit His power; St. Paul by 
slightly changing the language generalizes the statement and 
applies the words to the whole appearance of Pharaoh in the field 
of history. Just as the career of Moses exhibits the Divine mercy, 
so the career of Pharaoh exhibits the Divine severity, and in both 
cases the absolute sovereignty of God is vindicated. 

éfjyeipa: ‘I have raised thee up, placed thee in the field of 
history. There are two main interpretations of this word pos- 
sible. (1) It has been taken to mean, ‘I have raised thee up 
from sickness,’ so Gif. and others, ‘I have preserved thee and not 
taken thy life as I might have done.’ This is in all probability the 
meaning of the original Hebrew, ‘I made thee to stand,’ and 
certainly that of the LXX, which paraphrases the words S:ernpiOns. 
It is supported also by a reading in the Hexapla derqpnoa ce, by the 
Targum of Onkelos Sustinud te ut ostenderem tb, and the Arabic 
Le reservavi ut ostenderem tibt. Although <£eyeipew does not seem 
to occur in this sense, it is used 3 Cor. vi. 14 of resurrection from 


256 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1X. 17. 


the dead, and the simple verb éye‘pew in James v. ts means $ rais- 
ing from sickness.’ The words may possibly therefore have this 
sense, but the passage as quoted by St. Paul could not be so inter- 
preted. Setting aside the fact that he probably altered the reading 
of the LXX purposely, as the words occur here without any allusion 
to the previous sickness, the passage would be meaningless unless 
reference were made to the original, and would not justify the 
deduction drawn from it év 8é Oder oxAnpovet, 

(2) The correct interpretation (so Calv. Beng. Beyschlag Go. 
Mey. Weiss. Lips. Gore) is therefore one which makes St. Paul 
generalize the idea of the previous passage, and this is in accord- 
ance with the almost technical meaning of the verb efeyetpew in the 
LXX. It is used of God calling up the actors on the stage of 
history. So of the Chaldaeans Hab. i. 6 d:dre idov eym éfeyeipw Tous 
Xaddaiouvs : of a shepherd for the people Zech. xi. 16 didre od eya 
efeyeipw mopéva emt thy ynv: Of a great nation and kings Jer. xxvii. 
41 idod Aads Epxerae amd Boppa, Kat eOvos péya Kat Bacwdeis moddol 
eeyepOnoovra an’ €cxarov THs ‘yjs. This interpretation seems to be 
supported by the Samaritan Version, suds¢stere te fect, and cer- 
tainly by the Syriac, 0d td 4 constitut ut ostenderem; and it ex- 
presses just the idea which the context demands, that God had 
declared that Pharaoh’s position was owing to His sovereign will 
and pleasure—in order to carry out His Divine purpose and plan. 

The interpretation which makes ¢écyeipew mean ‘ call into being,’ 
‘create,’ has no support in the usage of the word, although not 
inconsistent with the context; and ‘to rouse to anger’ (Aug. de 
W. Fri. &c.) would require some object such as @vpdy, as in 
2 Macc. xiii. 4. 


The readings of the Latin Versions are as follows: Quia im hoc ipsum 
excttavi te, def, Vulg.; guia ad hoc ipsum te suscttavi, Orig.-lat.; guia in 
hoc ipsum excitavi te suscitavi te, g; guiain hoc tpsum te servavi, Ambrstr., 
who adds alii codices sic habent, ad hoc te suscitavi. Stve servavi sive 
Suscitavi unus est sensus. 

The reading of the LXX is «al Evexey rovrou dvernpnons iva évdei~wpat ev 
cot TH ioxdy pov, Kai Ors diayyEAp 7d Gvoua pov ev macy 7H yp. St. Paul’s 
variations are interesting. 

(1) eis adréd rovro is certainly a better and more emphatic representation 
of the Hebrew than the somewhat weak tovrou évexev. The expression is 
Earapears igamed Pauline (Rom. xiii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. vi. 18, 22; 
Col. iv. 8). 

(2) éfqyetpa oe represents better than the LXX the grammar of the Hebrew, 
‘I made thee to stand,’ but not the sense. The variants of the Hexapla 
(&ernpyoa) and other versions suggest that a more literal translation was in 
existence, but the word was very probably St. Paul’s own choice, selected to 
bring out more emphatically the meaning of the passage as he understood it. 

(3) évdei~mpor év oot. St. Paul here follows the incorrect translation of 
the LXX. The Hebrew gives as the purpose of God’s action that Pharaoh 
may know God’s power, and as a further consequence that God’s name may 
be known in the world. The LXX assimilates the first clause to the second 
and gives it a similar meaning. 


IX.17,18.] | THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 959 


(4) Sas... drs. Here St. Paul obliterates the distinction which the 
LXX (following the Hebrew) had made of iva... 6mas. But this alteration 
was only a natural result of the change in the LXX itself, by which the two 
clauses had become coordinate in thought. 

(5) For dvvayv the LXX reads loxvv. The reading of St. Paul appears 
as a variant in the Hexapla. 


18. dpo. odv. Just as ver. 16 sums up the argument of the first part 
of this paragraph, so this verse sums up the argument as it has 
been amplified and expounded by the additional example. 

ox\npuver: ‘hardens’; the word is suggested by the narrative of 
Exodus from which the former quotation is taken (Ex. iv. 21; vii. 
3; ix. 12; X. 20, 27; xi.10; xiv. 4, 8, 17) and it must be translated in 
accordance with the O. T. usage, without any attempt at softening 
or evading its natural meaning. 


The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament. 


A second objection is answered and a second step in the argu- 
ment laid down. God is not unjust if He select one man or one 
nation for a high purpose and another for a low purpose, one man 
for His mercy and another for His anger. As is shown by the 
Scriptures, He has absolute freedom in the exercise of His Divine 
sovereignty. St. Paul is arguing against a definite opponent, 
a typical Jew, and he argues from premises the validity of which 
chat Jew must admit, namely, the conception of God contained in 
the O. T. There this is clearly laid down—the absolute sove- 
reignty of God, that is to say, His power and His right to dispose 
the course of human actions as He will. He might select Israel 
for a high office, and Edom for a degraded part: He might 
select Moses as an example of His mercy, Pharaoh as an example 
of His anger. If this be granted He may (on grounds which the 
Jew must admit), if He will, select some Jews and some Gentiles 
for the high purpose of being members of His Messianic kingdom, 
while He rejects to an inferior part the mass of the chosen people. 

This is St. Paul’s argument. Hence there is no necessity for 
softening (as some have attempted to do) the apparently harsh 
expression of ver. 18, ‘whom He will He hardeneth.’ St. Paul 
says no more than he had said in i. 20-28, where he described the 
final wickedness of the world as in a sense the result of the Divine 
action. In both passages he is isolating one side of the Divine 
action; and in making theological deductions from his language 
these passages must be balanced by others which imply the Divine 
love and human freedom. It will be necessary to do this at the 
close of the discussion. At present we must be content with 
St. Paul’s conclusion, that God as sovereign has the absolute right 
and power of disposing of men’s lives as He will. 


258 EPISTLE. TO.THE ROMANS, [IX, 18, 19. 


We must not soften the passage. On the other hand, we must 
not read into it. more than it contains: as, for example, Calvin 
does. He imports various extraneous ideas, that St. Paul speaks 
of election to salvation and of reprobation to death, that men 
were created that they might perish, that God’s action not, only 
might be but was arbitrary: Hoc enim vult efficere apud nos, ut 
in ea quae apparel inter electos et reprobos diversitate, mens nostra 
contenta sit quod tla visum fuerit Deo, alios tlluminare in salutem, 
altos in mortem excaecare ... Corruitergo frivolum illud effugium quod 
de praescientia Scholastict habent, Neque enim praevideri ruinam im- 
prorum a Domino Paulus tradit, sed eius constlio et voluntate ordinari, 
quemadmodum et Solomo docet, non modo praccognilum fuisse impiorum 
tnteritum, sed impios ipsos futsse destinato creatos ul perirent. 

The Apostle says nothing about eternal life or death. He says 
nothing about the principles upon which God does act; he never 
says that His action is arbitrary (he will prove eventually that it 
is not so), but only that if it be na Jew who accepts the Scripture 
has any right to complain. He never says or implies that God 
has created man for the purpose of his damnation. What he does 
say is that in His government of the world God reserves to, Him- 
self perfect freedom of dealing with man on His own conditions 
and not on.man’s. So Gore, of. cif. p. 40, Sums up the argument: 
‘God always revealed Himself as retaining His. liberty.of choice, 
as refusing to tie Himself, as selecting the historic examples of 
His hardening judgement and His compassionate good will, so as 
to baffle all attempts on our part to create His vocations by our 
own efforts, or anticipate the persons whom. He. will use for His 
purposes of mercy or of judgement.’ 


19. épeis pot ody. Hardly are the last words éy 8€ @ed\et oxdn- 
pover out of St. Paul’s mouth than he imagines his opponent in 
controversy catching at an objection, and he at once takes it up and 
forestalls him. By substituting this phrase for the more usual 
Ti ody épotpery, St. Paul seems to identify himself less with his 
opponent’s objection. 

pot ovv is the reading of N° ABb, Orig. 1/3 Jo.~Damase.;. oty pot of the 


TR. is supported by DEF GK L &c., Vulg. Boh., Orig. 2/3 and Orig.-lat. 
Chrys. Thdrt. It is the substitution of the more usual order. ’ 


ti ért peuerat: ‘why considering that it is God, who.hardens 
me does He still find fault?’ Why does, he. first, produce. a 
position of disobedience to His will, and then blame me for falling 
into it? The é implies that a changed condition, has. been pro- 
duced which makes the continuation of the previous. results.sur- 
prising. So Rom. ili. 7 ef 5€ 7 GAnGea rod Geod ev Th eyo. Wevopare 
tnepicaevoev cis thy Sdgav avrov, Ti ert nayd os duapro@dds. Kpivopat ; 
Rom. vi. 2 oirwes dneOdvopev rH duaprtig, mas ere (yoomen.<v.airg; 


IX. 19-21.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 259 


wi @r péugerar is read by TR. and RV. with NA KLP &c., Vulg. Syrr. 

Boh., and many Fathers. BDEFG, Orig.-lat. Hieron. insert ovv after zi. 

BouAyjpart, which occurs in only two other passages in the N. T. 
(Acts ’xxvii. 43; 1 Pet. iv. 3) seems to be substituted for the 
ordinary word 6éAn#a as implying more definitely the deliberate 
purpose’ of God. 

ahéornee. Perfect with present sense; cf. ‘Rom. xiii. 2 dore 
6 dyriracodpevos 15 eLovaig tH Tod Ocod diatayy dvBeornKev, Winer, 
§ xl.-4, p. 342, E.T. The meaning is not: ‘who is able to 
resist,’ but “what man is there who is resisting God’s will?’ There 
is No resistance being offered by the man who disobeys; he is only 
doing what God has willed that he should do. 

20. GadvOpwre. The form in which St. Paul answers this question 
is thetorical, but it is incorrect to say that he refuses to argue. 
The answér he gives, while administering a severe rebuke to his 
opponent, contains also a logical refutation. He reminds him 
that the real relation’ of every man to God (hence & dvépare) is 
that of created to’Creator, and hence not only has he no right 
to complain, but also God has the Creator’s right to do what He 
will with those whom He has Himself moulded and fashioned. 

pevoovye: ‘nay rather, a strong correction. The word seems 
to belong almost exclusively to N. T. Greek, and would be impossible 
at the beginning of a sentence in classical Greek. Cf. Rom. x. 18; 
Phil. iii. 8; but probably not Luke xi. 28. 


& GvOpwme pevorvye is read by NAB (but B om. ye as in Phil. iii. 8), 
Orig. 1/4 Jo.-Damasc. ; pevoovye is omitted by DFG, defg Vulg., 
Orig.-lat., and inserted before ® avOpwne by NCDEK LP and later MSS., 
Orig. 3/4, Chrys. Theod.-mops Thdrt. &c. The same MSS. (F Gd fg) and 
Orig.-lat. omit the word again in x. 18, and in Phil. iii. 8 BDEFGKL 
and other authorities read _ pev ouv alone. The expression was omitted as 
unusual by many copyists, and when restored in the margin crept into 
a different position in the verse. 


ph épet td wAdopa, x.t.A. The conception of the absolute power 
of the Creator over His creatures as represented by the power of 
the potter over his clay was a well-known O. T. idea which 
St. Paul shared with his opponent and to which therefore he could 
appeal with confidence. Both the idea and the language are bor- 
rowed from Is, xlv. 8-10 ¢ya ciue Kuptos 6 xricas ce* moioy BéATiov 
KaTeokevaca os mNAOY KEepapews... py epei 6 MOS TH kepapel Ti 
Moteis, OTL ovK epya(n:ovde Exets yxelpas; py amoKpiOnoeTat TO TAGT pA 
mpos Tov mAGoarta ait and Is. xxix. 16 ody as 6 myOs TOD KEpa- 
pees Aoyobnoeade 5 py épet TO TAdopa TO TAdCAarTt aiTd OV Ov LE 
€mdacas; 7 TO Toinpa TO moimnoavre OV cuveTa@s pe emoinoas ; Cf. also 
Is. lxiv. 8; Jer. xviii. 6; Eccles. xxxvi. [xxxiii.] 13. 

21. 4 odx exer scone ‘if you do not accept this you will be 
compelled to confess that the potter has not complete control over 
his clay—an absurd idea.’ The unusual position of rod mod, which 


260 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (TX. 21, 22. 


should of course be taken with efovciay, is intended to emphasize 
the contrast between xepayeds and mdds, as suggesting the true 
relations of man and God. 

gupdparos: ‘the lump of clay.’ Cf. Rom. xi. 16; 1 Cor. v. 6, 75 
Gal. v.9. The exact point to which this metaphor isto be pressed 
may be doubtful, and it must always be balanced by language used 
elsewhere in St. Paul’s Epistles; but it is impossible to argue that 
there is no idea of creation implied: the potter is represented not 
merely as adapting for this or that purpose a vessel already made, 
but as making out of a mass of shapeless material one to which he 
gives a character and form adapted for different uses, some 
honourable, some dishonourable. 

3 peév eis tushy ckedos, xt.A.: cf. Wisd. xv. 7 (see below) 
2 Tim. ii. 20 év peyddn S€ oikia otk EoTe pdvov aKevn xpvoa ka 
dpyupa, dAda kat EvAwa kai dorpdkiwa, Kai & pev eis tinny, & dé eis drepiav. 
But there the side of human responsibility is emphasized, éav ody rus 
exkaOdpn €avTov amd ToUT@y, EoTat oKEdoOS cis TLLNY, K.T.A. 

The point of the argument is clear. Is there any injustice if 
God has first hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then condemned him, 
if Israel is rejected and then blamed for being rejected? The answer 
is twofold. In vv. 19-21 God’s conduct is shown to be right under 
all circumstances. In wv. 22 sq. it is explained or perhaps rather 
hinted that He has a beneficent purpose in view. In vv. 19-21 
St. Paul shows that for God to be unjust is impossible. As He has 
made man, man is absolutely in His power. Just as we do not 
consider the potter blameable if he makes a vessel for a dishonour- 
able purpose, so we must not consider God unjust if He chooses to 
make a man like Pharaoh for a dishonourable part in history. Posf- 
quam demonstratum est, Deum ita egtsse, demonstratum etiam est omni- 
bus, gui Most credunt, eum convenienter suae tustitiae egisse. Wetstein. 

As in iii. 5 St. Paul brings the argument back to the absolute 
fact of God’s justice, so here he ends with the absolute fact of 
God’s power and right. God had not (as the Apostle will show) 
acted arbitrarily, but if He had done so what was man that he 
should complain? 

22. ei Sé O€dwv 6 Ocds, x.7.A.: ‘but if God, &c., what will you say 
then?’ like our English idiom ‘ What and if’ There is no apo- 
dosis to the sentence, but the construction, although grammatically 
incomplete, is by no means unusual: cf. Jo. vi. 61, 62 rovro wpas 
oxavdariter ; €av odv Oewpaze Tov viov Tod avOpamov avaBaivovra Srov 
jv rd mporepov; Acts xxiii. g ovdev Kaxdv ebpicxopev ev TO avOpor@ 
rour@’ «i S€ mvedpa ehddnoey avo h ayyedos; Luke xix. 41, 42 kai os 
iyyoev, iSdv thy mddkw exravoev én” ait] A€ywv tt Ei €yvas ev TH Hpepa 
ravtn Kat ob Ta mpos etpyynvy. There is no difficulty (as Oltramare 
seems to think) in the length of the sentence. All other con- 
structions, such as an attempt to find am apodosis in «al ia 


. 
. 
Gj 


1X. 22.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 261 


yvopion, in obs cat éekddeoev, OF even in ver. 31 Ti ody epodper, are 
needlessly harsh and unreal. 

The 8¢ (which differs from ody: cf. Jo. vi. 62; Acts xxiii. 9), 
although not introducing a strong opposition to the previous 
sentence, implies a change of thought. Enough has been said to 
preserve the independence of the Divine will, and St. Paul suggests 
another aspect of the question, which will be expounded more 
fully later ;—one not in any way opposed to the freedom of the 
Divine action, but showing as a matter of fact how this freedom 
has been exhibited. ‘But if God, notwithstanding His Divine 
sovereignty, has in His actual dealings with mankind shown such 
unexpected mercy, what becomes of your complaints of injustice ?’ 

@€\wv. There has been much discussion as to whether this 
should be translated ‘because God wishes,’ or ‘although God 
wishes. (1) In the former case (so de W. and most commenta- 
tors) the words mean, ‘God because He wishes to show the 
terrible character of His wrath restrains His hands, until, as in the 
case of Pharaoh, He exhibits His power by a terrible overthrow. 
He hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order that the judgement might 
be more terrible.’ (2) In the latter case (Mey.-W. Go. Lips. 
Gif.), ‘God, although His righteous anger might naturally lead to 
His making His power known, has through His kindness delayed 
and borne with those who had become objects that deserved His 
wrath.’ That this is correct is saown by the words év moAdg paxpo- 
@vpia, which are quite inconsistent with the former interpretation, 
and by the similar passage Rom. ii. 4, where it is distinctly stated 
TO xpyotov Tov Gcod eis petavoav oe aye. Even if St. Paul occa- 
sionally contradicts himself, that is no reason for making him do so 
unnecessarily. As Liddon says the three points added in this 
sentence, the natural wrath of God against sin and the violation of 
His law, the fact that the objects of His compassion were cxevn 
épyjs, and that they were fitted for destruction, all intensify the 
difficulty of the Divine restraint. 

evdeigacbar thy dpyyv Kal yvwpicat 76 Suvatdv adtod are reminis- 
cences of the language used in the case of Pharaoh, evdcifopna ev 
gol Ty Svvapiv pov. 

oxety dpyis: ‘vessels which deserve God’s anger’; the image of 
the previous verse is continued. The translation ‘destined for 
God’s anger’ would require oxetn eis opynv: and the change of con- 
struction from the previous verse must be intentional. 

katnptiopeva eis dmad\evav: ‘prepared for destruction.’ The 
construction is purposely different from that of the corresponding 
words a mpontoivacer, St. Paul does not say ‘whom God pre- 
pared for destruction’ (Mey.), although in a sense at any rate he 
could have done so (ver. 18 and i. 24, &c.), for that would conflict 
with the argument ox the sentence; nor does he say that they 


262 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ___[ IX. 22, 28 


had fitted themselves for destruction (Chrys. Theoph. Oecum 
Grotius Beng.), although, as the argument in chap. x shows, he 
could have done so, for this would have been to impair the con- 
ception of God’s freedom of action which at present he wishes to 
emphasize; but he says just what is necessary for his immediate 
purpose—they were fitted for eternal destruction (dmédea opp. to 
cwrnpia). That is the point to which he wishes to attract our 
attention. 

23. kai tva yywpion. These words further develop and explain 
God’s action so as to silence any objection. St. Paul states that 
God has not only shown great long-suffering in bearing with those 
fitted for destruction, but has done so in order to be able to show 
mercy to those whom He has called: the «ai therefore couples iva 
yvepion in thought with ev rodAy paxpobvpia. St. Paul is no longer 
(see ver. 24) confining himself to the special case of Pharaoh, 
although he still remembers it, as his language shows, but he is 
considering the whole of God’s dealings with the unbelieving Jews, 
and is laying down the principles which will afterwards be worked 
out in full—that the Jews had deserved God's wrath, but that He 
had borne with them with great long-suffering both for their own 
sakes and for the ultimate good of His Church. In these verses, as 
in the expression 9 kar’ éx\oyjv mpdbeors, St. Paul is in fact hinting 
at the course of the future argument, and in that connexion they 
must be understood. 


On the exact construction of these words there has been great variety of 
opinion, and it may be convenient to mention some divergent views. 
(1) WH. on the authority of B, several minuscules, Vulg. Boh. Sah., Orig.-lat. 
3/3 omit xai. This makes the construction simpler, but probably for that very 
reason should be rejected. A reviser or person quoting would naturally omit 
«ai: it is difficult to understand why it should be inserted: moreover on such 
a point as this the authority of versions is slighter, since to omit a pleonastic «ai 
would come within the ordinary latitude of interpretation necessary for their 
purpose. There is some resemblance to xvi. 27. In both cases we find the 
same MS. supporting a reading which we should like to accept, but which 
has much the appearance of being an obvious correction. (2) Calv. Grot. 
de W. Alf. and others make «ai couple @éAey and iva ywapicp. But 
this obliges us to take @cAov ... évdeif{ac@ar as expressing the purpose 
of the sentence which is both impossible Greek and gives a meaning 
inconsistent with paxpobupia. (3) Fri. Beyschlag and others couple iva 
ywopion and cis dmwAcayv; but this is to read an idea of purpose into 
watnptiapéva which it does not here possess. (4) To make «at iva 
give the apodosis of the sentence «i 5¢ jveyxew (Ols. Ewald, &c.), or to 
create a second sentence repeating «i, xal ei va... (supposing a second 
ellipse), or to find a verb hidden in éxdAecev, supposing that St. Panl meant 
to write xai el iva yvopicn . . . éxaAecev but changed the construction and put 
the verb into a relative sentence (Go. Oltramare); all these are quite im- 
possible and quite unnecessary constructions. 


roy tAodTov, K.t.A.: cf. ii. 4; Eph, iii. 16 cara rd wAdovros ras ddfqe 
airov, 


IX. 23-25.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 263 


& mpontoipacey eis S6fav: the best commentary on these words 
is Rom. viii. 28-30. 


We may note the very striking use made of this metaphor of the potter's 
wheel and the cup by Browning, Rabbi ben Ezra, xxvi-xxxii. e may 
especially illustrate the words & mponroipacer els ddfav. 

But I need now as then, 
Thee, God, who mouldest men; 


So take and use thy work! 
Amend what flaws may lurk, 
What strain o’ the stuff, what warpings past the aim! 
My times be in Thy hand! 
Perfect the cup as planned! 
Let age approve of youth, and death complete the same! 


24. ols kai éxddecey Has: ‘even us whom He has called.’ 
The ovs is attracted into the gender of jyas. The relative clause 
gives an additional fact in a manner not unusual with St. Paul. 
Rom. i. 6 & ois éore kai pets: 2 Tim. i. 10 daticavros Se Conv rat 
apOapoiay dia rod edayyeNiou, cis 6 er€nv ey@ knpvé The calling of the 
Gentiles is introduced not because it was a difficulty St. Paul was 
discussing, but because, as he shows afterwards, the calling of the 
Gentiles had come through the rejection of the Jews. 

There have been two main lines of interpretation of the above 
three verses. (1) According to the one taken above they modify 
and soften the apparent harshness of the preceding passage (19-21). 
That this is the right view is shown by the exegetical con- 
siderations given above, and by the drift of the argument which 
culminating as it does in a reference to the elect clearly implies 
some mitigation in the severity of the Divine power as it has been 
described. (2) The second view would make the words of ver. 22 
continue and emphasize this severity of tone: ‘ And even if God has 
borne with the reprobate for a time only in order to exhibit more 
clearly the terror of His wrath, and in order to reveal His mercy 
to the elect, even then what right have you—man that you are— 
to complain?’ Cf. Calvin: Ha sz dominus ad aliquod tempus patienter 
sustinel ...ad demonstranda suae severitatis tudicia... ad viriutem 
suam tllustrandam,...praeterea quo inde notior fiat et clarius elucescat 
suae in electos misericordiae ampliudo: guid in hac dispensatione 
misericordiae dignum ? 

25. és xai: ‘and this point, the rejection of the Jews and the 
calling of the Gentiles, is foretold by the prophet.’ St. Paul now 
proceeds to give additional force to his argument by a series of 
quotations from the O. T., which are added as a sort of appendix 
to the first main section of his argument 

kohéow .. . HyaTnpévnv—quoted from the LXX of Hosea ii. 23 
with some alterations. In the original passage the words refer 
to the ten tribes. A son and daughter of Hosea are named Lo- 


264 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 25, 26. 


ammi, ‘ not a people’ and Lo-ruhamah, ‘without mercy,’ to signify 
the fallen condition of the ten tribes; and Hosea prophesies their 
restoration (cf. Hosea i. 6, 8, 9). St. Paul applies the principle 
which underlies these words, that God can take into His covenant 
those who were previously cut off from it, to the calling of the 
Gentiles. A similar interpretation of the verse was held by the 
Rabbis. Pesachim viii. f. Dixit R. Eliezer: Non alia de causa in 
exilium et caplivitatem misit Deus S. B. Israelem inter nationes, nisi 
ut facerent multos proselytos S. D. Oseae ii. 25 (23) ef seram eam 
mihi in terram. Numquid homo seminat salum nisi ut colligat 


multos coros iritict? Wetstein. 


The LXX reads éAchow tiv ob hrenuevny, wat Epd TH od AAD pow Aads pow 
ef ov, but for the first clause which agrees with the Hebrew the Vatican 
substitutes dyarnow tiv ove qyannuevnv. St. Paul inverts the order of the 
clauses, so that the reference to dv ob Aadv pov, which seems particularly to 
suit the Gentiles, comes first, and for ép@ substitutes «adéow which naturally 
crept in from the éxdAecev of the previous verse, and changes the construc- 
tion of the clause to suit the new word. In the second clause St. Paul seems 
to have used a text containing the reading of the Vatican MS., for the latter 
can hardly have been altered to harmonize with him. St. Peter makes use of 
the passage with the reading of the majority of MSS.: of roré ob Aads, viv 38 
Aads @cov, of ovx jAEnpEvar, viv Se ErenOevTes (1 Pet. ii. 10). 


xahéow with a double accusative can only mean ‘I will name,’ 
although the word has been suggested by its previous occurrence 
in another sense. 

26. Kal €orat, ev Ta Témy... exer... St. Paul adds a passage 
with a similar purport from another part of Hosea (i. 10). The 
meaning is the same and the application to the present purpose 
based on exactly the same principles. The habit had probably 
arisen of quoting passages to prove the calling of the Gentiles ; and 
these would become commonplaces, which at a not much later date 
might be collected together in writing, see Hatch, Assays in Biblical 
Greek, p. 103, and cf. Rom. iii. to. The only difference between 
St. Paul’s quotation and the LXX is that he inserts éxet: this insertion 
seems to emphasize the idea of the place, and it is somewhat difficult 
to understand what place is intended. (1) In the original the place 
referred to is clearly Palestine: and if that be St. Paul’s meaning 
he must be supposed to refer to the gathering of the nations at 
Jerusalem and the foundation of a Messianic kingdom there 
(cf. xi. 26). St. Paul is often strongly influenced by the language and 
even the ideas of Jewish eschatology, although in his more spiritual 
passages he seems to be quite freed from it. (2) If we neglect 
the meaning of the original, we may interpret exet of the whole 
world. ‘Wheresoever on earth there may be Gentiles, who have 
had to endure there the reproach of being not God’s people, in 
that place they shall be called God’s people, for they will become 
members of His Church and it will be universal’ 


IX. 27-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 205 


27,28. St. Paul has supported one side of his statement from 
the O. T., namely, that Gentiles should be called; he now passes 
on to justify the second, namely, that only a remnant of the Jews 
should be saved. 

27. édv 7 6 dprOuss ... emt tis yijis: quoted from the LXX of 
Is. x. 22, but considerably shortened. The LXX differs considerably 
from the Hebrew, which the translators clearly did not understand. 
But the variations in the form do not affect the meaning in any 
case. St. Paul reproduces accurately the idea of the original 
passage. The context shows that the words must be translated 
‘only a remnant shall be saved,’ and that it is the cutting off of 
Israel by the righteous judgement of God that is foretold. Prof. 
Cheyne in 1884 translated the Hebrew: ‘For though thy people, 
O Israel, were as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall 
return: a final work and a decisive, overflowing with righteousness ! 
For a final work and a decisive doth the Lord, Jehovah Sabaoth, 
execute within all the land.’ 

28. Aéyov yap ourtehGv Kal cuvtépvwv toujoet Kuptos emt tis yas: 
ovvredoy, accomplishing,’ cvrrepvwr, ‘abridging.’ Cf. Is. xxviii. 22 
Gide ouvrereheopeva Kai ouvretpneva mpdyyata qkovoa mapa Kupiov 
SaBawb, & momo emt macav thy yyy. ‘For a word, accomplishing 
and abridging it, that is, a sentence conclusive and concise, will 
the Lord do upon the earth.’ 


Three critical points are of some interest: 

(1) The variations in the MSS. of the Gr. Test. For émdéAeppa (drdAcupa 
WH.) of the older MSS. (NAB, Eus.), later authorities read cardAeppa 
to agree with the LXX. In ver. 28 Adyov ydp ovvreAdy kal ovvtépvav 
woinoe: Kipios ént ths ys is the reading of N AB a few minusc., Pesh. Boh. - 
Aeth., Eus. 2/3; Western and Syrian authorities add after ovytépywy, ev 
Sikaroovyn* Stt Adyov auvTeTunpEvoy to suit the LXX. Alford defends the 
TR. on the plea of homoeoteleuton (cuyréyvay and ovyretunpévov), but-the 
insertion of yap after Adyov which is preserved in the TR. (where it is 
ungrammatical) and does not occur in the text of the LXX, shows that the 
shortened form was what St. Paul wrote. 

(2) The variations from the LXX. The LXX reads xat édy yevn7a 
6 Aads “IopanA ws % dppos THs Paddoons, TO KaTGAcimpa aiTav owOnceTaL. 
Adyov cuvTeAGy Kal ovvtépvow ev Sikaocivy Ste Adyov cuvTerpnpEevoy Kupios 
fojoe év TH oikovpévp SAp. St. Paul substitutes dpOpycs Tay vidy “IopanaA, 
a reminiscence from Hosea i, 10, the words immediately preceding those 
quoted by him above. The later part of the quotation he considerably 
shortens. 

(3) The variations of the LXX from the Hebrew. These appear to arise 
from an inability to translate. For ‘a final work and a decisive, overflowing 
with righteousness,’ they wrote ‘a word, accomplishing and abridging it in 
righteousness,’ and for ‘a final work and a decisive,’ ‘a word abridged will 
the Lord do,’ &c. 


29. mpoetpnev: ‘has foretold.’ A second passage is quoted in 
corroboration of the preceding. 
€t pi) Kupios «.t.h., quoted from the LXX of Is. i. 9, which 


266 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _ [IX.. 19-29. 


again seems adequately to represent the Hebrew. ‘Even in the 
O. T., that book from which you draw your hopes, it is stated that 
Israel would be completely annihilated and forgotten but for 
a small remnant which would preserve their seed and name.’ 


The Power and Rights of God as Creator. 


St. Paul in this section (vv. 19-29) expands and strengthens 
the previous argument. He had proved in vv. 14-18 the absolute 
character of the Divine sovereignty from the O. T.; he now 
proves the same from the fundamental relations of God to man 
implied in that fact which all his antagonists must admit—that 
God had created man. This he applies in an image which was 
common in the O. T. and the Apocryphal writings, that of the 
potter and the clay. God has created man, and, as far as the 
question of ‘right’ and ‘justice’ goes, man cannot complain of 
his lot. He would not exist but for the will of God, and whether 
his lot-be honourable or dishonourable, whether he be destined for 
eternal glory or eternal destruction, he has no ground for speak- 
ing of injustice. The application to the case in point is very 
clear. Ifthe Jews are to be deprived of the Messianic salvation, 
they have, looking at the question on purely abstract grounds, 
no right or ground of complaint. Whether or no God be 
arbitrary in His dealings with them does not matter: they must 
submit, and that without murmuring. 

This is clearly the argument. We cannot on the one hand 
‘minimize the force of the words by limiting them to a purely 
earthly destination: as Beyschlag, ‘out of the material of the 
human race which is at His disposal as it continues to come into 
existence to stamp individuals with this or that historical destina- 
tion,’ implying that St. Paul is making no reference either to the 
original creation of man or to his final destination, in both points 
erroneously. St. Paul’s argument cannot be thus limited. It is 
entirely based on the assumption that God has created man, and 
‘the use of the words cis ddéav, eis dadctay prove conclusively that 
he is looking as much as he ever does to the final end and 
destination of man. To limit them thus entirely deprives the 
passage of any adequate meaning. 

But on the other side it is equally necessary to see exactly how 
much St. Paul does say, and how much he does not. He never 
says, he carefully avoids saying, that God has created men for 
reprobation. What his argument would bear is that, supposing 
we isolate this point, the ‘rights’ of man against God or of God 
against man, then, even if God had created man for reprobation, 
man could have no grounds for complaint, 


IX. 19-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 267 


We must in fact remember—and it is quite impossible to under- 
stand St. Paul if we do not—that the three chapters ix—xi form 
one very closely reasoned whole. Here more than anywhere else 
in his writings, more clearly even than ini. 16—iii. 26, does St. Paul 
show signs of a definite method. He raises each point separately, 
argues it and then sets it aside. He deliberately isolates for a time 
the aspect under discussion. So Mr. Gore (of. ci#. p. 37): ‘ His 
method may be called abstract or ideal: that is to say, he makes 
abstraction of the particular aspect of a subject with which he is 
immediately dealing, and—apparently indifferent to being misun- 
derstood—treats it in isolation; giving, perhaps, another aspect of 
the same subject in equal abstraction in a different place.’ He 
isolates one side of his argument in one place, one in another, 
and just for that very reason we must never use isolated texts. 
We must not make deductions from one passage in his writings 
separated from its contexts and without modifying it by other 
passages presenting other aspects of the same questions. The 
doctrinal deductions must be made at the end of chap. xi and not 
of chap. ix. 

St. Paul is gradually working out a sustained argument. He 
has laid down the principle that God may choose and reject whom 
He wills, that He may make men for one purpose or another just 
as He wills, and if He will in quite an arbitrary manner. But it is 
already pointed out that this is not His method. He has shown 
long-suffering and forbearance. Some there were whom He had 
created, that had become fitted for destruction—as will be shown 
eventually, by their own act. These He has borne with—both 
for their own sakes, to give them room for repentance, and be- 
cause they have been the means of exhibiting His mercy on those 
whom He has prepared for His glory. The Apostle lays down 
the lines of the argument he will follow in chap. xi. 

The section concludes with a number of quotations from the 
O. T., introduced somewhat irregularly so far as method and 
arrangement go, to recall the fact that this Divine plan, which we 
shall find eventually worked out more fully, had been foretold by 
the O. T. Prophets. 

(The argument of Rom. ix—xi is put for English readers in the 
most accessible and clearest form by Mr. Gore in the paper often 
ee) above in Studia Biblica, iii. 37, ‘The argument of Romans 
ix—xi. 


The Relation of St. Paul's Argument in chap. ix 
to the Book of Wisdom. 


In a note at the end of the first chapter of the Romans the very marked 
resemblance that exists between St. Paul’s language there and certain 


268 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _[IX. 19-29. 


passages in the Book of Wisdom has been pointed out. Again in the ninth 
chapter the same resemblance meets us, and demands some slight treatment 
in this place. The passages referred to occur mostly in Wisdom xi, xii. 

There is first of all similarity of subject. Wisdom x-xix form like 
Rom. ix-xi a sort of Philosophy of History. The writer devotes himself to 
exhibiting Wisdom as a power in the world, and throughout (influenced 
perhaps by associations connected with the place of his residence) contrasts 
the fortunes of the Israelites and Egyptians, just as St. Paul makes Moses 
and Pharaoh his two typical instances. 

And this resemblance is continued in details, 

The impossibility of resisting the Divine power is more than once dwelt 
on, and in language which has a very close resemblance with passages in the 
Romans. 


Rom. ix. 19, 20 épeis jor obv, Ti érs 
pwéupera; TH yap BovdAnpatt avTovd 
tis dvOéaTHKE; ~~. pH Epet 7d 
mAdopa TO wAdcavT, Ti pe érol- 
noas ovTws; 


Wisd. xi. a1 wal xpdre: Bpaxtovds 
gov Tis dvTtoTHGeETAL; 

xii. 12 Tis yap épet, Ti €moincas; h 
Tis dvTioTHoETAL T@ kKpiuati gov; 
tis 5& éyradéce co KaTa ebvav aroha 
AdTav, & ad énoinaas; H Tis els KaTa- 
oraciv au éhevoerar exducos KaTa Gdi- 
wav avOpuroy ; 


Both writers again lay great stress on the forbearance of God. 


Rom. ix. 22, 23 «i 5 Oédav 6 
@cds evbeifacba tHyv dpyijv Kat 
yopica 76 Suvardv avtov Hveycev 
év ToAAR pakpobupia oKedn dpyns 
KaTnpTicpéeva eis amwdeLay, 
kal iva yvapion Tov mAOUTOY THs 5ogns 
aurov em okevn Ed€ous K.T.A. 


Wisd. xii. 10 xpivoy 5 kata Bpayd 
€5i50us Témoy peravoias. 

Xii. 20 ef ydp éxOpovs maldawv gov Kai 
dépetAopévous Gavatw pera Tooav- 
Ts ETiuwpyoas mpodoxns Kal Sencews, 
dots xpévous Kat témov & Gy amad- 
AayGot Tis Kakias, peta moons axpi- 
Betas Expiwvas Tods viovs cov; 


So again we have the image of the potter used by both, although neither 
the context nor the purpose is quite similar, 


Rom. ix. 21 # ov« éxe éfouciay 
6 kepapeds TOU THAOD, Ex TOD 
aurov pupapatos majoa b pev els 
Tipny okedos, d de els dtipiay; 


Wisd. xv. 7 xal ydp kepapyeds ama- 
Ahv yiv OdAiBav éripnox Pov mAdooet mpos 
Umnpeciay hydv Exactov* GAN’ Ex TOD 
avrov mnAOv avenAdoaTo TA TE TOV 
wadapav Epyov Soka oxen, Ta TE 
évavria, nav’ Spoiws’ tovTaw 5& érépov 
ris éxactov tativ % xpos, KpiTis 6 
mnAoupyos. 


The particular resemblance of special passages and of the general drift of 
the argument combined with similar evidence from other parts of the Epistle 
seems to suggest some definite literary obligation. But here the indebted- 
ness ceases. The contrast is equally instructive. The writer of the Book of 
Wisdom uses broad principles without understanding their meaning, is often 
self-contradictory, and combines with ideas drawn from his Hellenic culture 
crude and inconsistent views. The problem is the distinction between the 
positions of Jews and Gentiles in the Divine economy. Occasionally we 
find wide universalist sentiments, but he always comes back to a strong 
nationalism. At one time he says (xi. 23-26): ‘ But Thou hast mercy upon 
all... Thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which 
Thou hast made... Thou sparest all: for they are Thine, O Lord, Thou 
Lover of souls.’ But shortly after we read (xii. ro): ‘Thou gavest them 
place for repentance, not being ignorant that their cogitation would never 
be changed.’ We soon find in fact that the philosophy of the Book of 
Wisdom is strictly limited by the nationalist sympathies of the writer. The 


IX. 6-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 269 


Gentiles are to be punished by God for being enemies of His people and for 
their idolatry. Any forbearance has been only fora time and that largely 
for the moral instruction thus indirectly to be given to the Jews. The Jews 
have been punished,—but only slightly, and with the purpose of teaching 
them : the Gentiles for their idolatry deserve ‘ extreme damnation.’ 

Tf St. Paul learnt from the Book of Wisdom some expressions illustrating 
the Divine power, and ageneral aspect of the question: he obtained nothing 
further, His broad views and deep insight arehisown. And itis interest- 
ing to contrast a Jew who has learnt many maxims which conflict with his 
nationalism but yet retains all his narrow sympathies, with the Christian 
Apostle full of broad sympathy and deep insight, who sees in human af- 
fairs a purpose of God for the benefit of the whole world being worked out. 


A History of the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 6-29. 


The difficulties of the ninth chapter of the Romans are so great that few 
will ever be satisfied that they have really understood it: at any rate an 
acquaintance with the history of exegesis upon it will make us hesitate to be 
too dogmatic about our own conclusions. A survey of some of the more 
typical lines of comment (nothing more can be attempted) will be a fitting 
supplement to the general discussion given above on its meaning. 

The earliest theologians who attempted to construct a system out of Gnostics 
St. Paul’s writings were the Gnostics. They found the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, or to speak more correctly certain texts and ideas selected from the 
Epistle (such as Rom. v. 14 and viii. 19; cf. Hip. Ref. vii. 25) and generally 
misinterpreted, very congenial. And, as might naturally be expected, the 
doctrine of election rigidly interpreted harmonized with their own exclusive 
religious pretensions, and with the key-word of their system guois. Weare 
not surprised therefore to learn that Rom. ix. , especially ver. 14 sq., was one 
of their strongholds, nor do we require to be told how they interpreted it 
(see Origen De Princ. III. 1i. 8, vol. xxi. p. 267, ed. Lomm. = PAz/oc. xxi, 
vol. xxv. p. 170; Comm. in Rom. Prae7. vol.vi. p.1; and Tert. Adz. 
Marcion, ii. 14). 

The interest of the Gnostic system of interpretation is thatit determined Origen 
the direction and purpose of Origen, who discusses the passage not only in 
his Commentary, written after 244 (vii. 15-18, vol. vii. pp. 160-180), but 
also in the third book of the De Princifiis, written before 231 (De Prin. 
IIL. ii. 7-22, vol. xxi. pp. 265-303= PAz/oc. xxi. vol. xxv. pp. 164-190), be- 
sides some few other passages. His exegesis is throughout a strenuous 
defence of freewill. Exegetically the most marked feature is that he puts 
vv. I4-I9 into the mouth of an opponent of St. Paul, an interpretation 
which influenced subsequent patristic commentators. Throughout he 
states that God calls men because they are worthy, not that they are 
worthy because they are called; and that they are worthy because they 
have made themselves so. Cf. ad Rom. vii. 17 (Lomm. vii. 175) U# 
enim lacob esset vas ad honorem sanctificatum, et utile Domino, ad 
omne opus bonum paratum, ANIMA EIUS EMENDAVERAT SEMET IPSAM : 
et videns Deus puritatem eius, et potestatem habens ex eadem massa 
facere aliud vas ad honorem, aliud ad contumeliam, Iacob quidem, quit 
ut diximus emundaverat semet ipsum, fectt vas ad honorem, Esau 
VERO, CUIUS ANIMAM NON ITA PURAM NEC ITA SIMPLICEM VIDIT, 
ex cadem massa fecit vas ad contumeliam. To the question that may be 
asked, how or when did they make themselves such, the answer is, ‘In 
a state of pre-existence.’ De Princ. IL. ix. 7, Lomm. xxi. 225 igttur sicut 
de Esau et Jacob diligentius perscrutatis scripturis invenitur, guia non est 
intustitia apud Deum... SI EX PRAECEDENTIS VIDELICET VITAE MERITIS 
digne eum electum esse sentiamus a Deo, ita ut fratri pracponi mereretur 


Influence 
of Origen, 


Chrysos- 
tom. 


270 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IxX. 6-29. 


See also IJI. i. 21. Lomm. xxi. 300. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart he 
explains by the simile of rain. The rain is the same for all, but under its 
influence well-cultivated fields send forth good crops, ill-cultivated fields 
thistles, &c. (cf. Heb. vi. 7, 8). So it is a man’s own soul which hardens 
itself by refusing to yield to the Divine grace. The simile of the potter he 
explains by comparing 2 Tim. ii, 20, 21. ‘A soul which has not cleansed 
itself nor purged itself of its sins by penitence, becomes thereby a vessel for 
dishonour.’ And God knowing the character of the souls He has to deal 
with, although He does not foreknow their future, makes use of them—as 
for example Pharaoh—to fulfil that part in history which is necessary for 
His purpose. 

Origen’s interpretation of this passage, with the exception of his doctrine 
of pre-existence, had a very wide influence both in the East and West. In 
the West his interpretation is followed in the main by Jerome (Zf#st. 120 
ad Hedibiam de quaesticnibus 12, cap. 10, Migne xxii. 997), by Pelagius 
(Migne xxx. 687-691), and Sedulius Scotus (Migne ciii. 83-93). In the East, 
alter its influence had prevailed for a century and a half, it became the 
starting-point of the Antiochene exegesis. Of this school Diodore is un- 
fortunately represented to us only in isolated fragments; Theodore is strongly 
influenced by Origen; Chrysostom therefore may be taken as its best and most 
distinguished representative. His comment is contained in the X VIth homily 
on the Romans, written probably before his departure from Antioch, that » 
before the year 398. 

Chrysostom is like Origen a strong defender of Freewill. As might be 
expected in a member of the Antiochene school, he interprets the passage ip 
accordance with the purpose of St. Paul, i.e. to explain how it was the Jews 
had been rejected. He refers ver. 9 to those who have become true sons of 
God by Baptism. ‘ You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that 
are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by 
means of Baptism from above was sketched out’ beforehand. And if you 
tell me of the womb, I have in return to tell you of the water.’ On ver. 16 
he explains that Jacob wa’ called because he was worthy, and was known to 
be such by the Divine foreknowledge: 74 ar’ éxdoyiv mpd0ecis Tod Ocov is 
explained as 4 éxAoy7) 7 Kata mpd0cow Kal mpdyvwow yevouern. On vv. 14-20 
Chrysostom does not follow Origen, nor yet does he interpret the verses as ex- 
pressing St. Paul’s own mind ; but he represents him in answer to the objection 
that in this case God would be unjust, as putting a number of hard cases and 
texts which his antagonist cannot answer and thus proving that man has no right 
to object to God’s action, or accuse Him of injustice, since he cannot understand 
or follow Him. ‘ What the blessed Paul aimed at was to show by all that 
he said that only God knoweth who are worthy.’ Verses 20, 21 are not 
introduced to take away Freewill, but to show up to what point we ought 
to obey God. For if he were here speaking of the will, God would be 
Himself the creator of good or evil, and men would be free from all 
responsibility in these matters, and St. Paul would be inconsistent with 
himself. What he does teach is that ‘man should not contravene God, but 
yield to His incomprehensible wisdom.’ On vv. 22-24 he says that Pharaoh 
has been fitted for destruction by his own act; that God has left undone 
nothing which should save him, while he himself had left undone nothing 
which would lead to his own destruction. Yet God had bome with him with 
great long-suffering, wishing to lead him to repentance. ‘ Whence comes 
it then that some are vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own 
free choice. God however being very good shows the same kindness to both.’ 

The commentaries of Chrysostom became supreme in the East, and very 
largely influenced all later Greek commentators, Theodoret (sec. v), Photius 
(sec. ix), Oecumenius (sec. x), Theophylact (sec. xi), Euthymius Zigabenus 
(sec. xii), &c. 


IX. 6-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 271 


The tradition of the Greek commentators is preserved in the Russian Church. Russian 
Modem Sclavonic theology presents an interesting subject for study, as it is comme 
derived directly from Chrysostom and John of Damascus, and has hardly aries. 
been ‘Illuminated or obscured by the strong, although often one-sided, influ- 
ence of Augustine and Western Scolasticism. In the Commentary of Bishop 
Theophanes * on the Romans (he died in 1894) published at Moscow in 
1890, we find these characteristics very clearly. Just as in Chrysostom we 
find the passage interpreted in accordance not with @ grzoré theories as to 
Grace and Predestination, but with what was clearly St. Paul’s purpose, the 
problem of the ‘ Unbelief of the Jews in the presence of Christianity.’ And 
also as in Chrysostom we find vv. 11, 12 explained on the grounds of Fore- 
knowledge, and Pharaoh’s destruction ascribed to his own act. On ver. 18: 
? The word “‘ he hardeneth ” must not be understood to mean that God by His 
power effected a hardening in the heart of the disobedient like Pharaoh, but 
that the disobedient in character, under the working of God’s mercies, them- 
selves, according to their evil character do not soften themselves, but more and 
more harden themselves in their obstinacy and disobedience.” So again 
on vv. 22, 23: ‘God prepared the one to be vessels of mercy, the others 
fashioned themselves into vessels of wrath.’ And the commentary on these 
verses concludes thus: ‘Do not be troubled and do not admit of the thought 
that there is any injustice, or that the promise has failed; but on the contrary 
believe, that God in all his works is good and right, and rest yourselves in 
devotion to His wise and for us unsearchable destinations and divisions.’ 
There is, in fact, a clear conception of the drift and purpose of St. Paul’s 
argument, but a fear of one-sided predestination teaching makes a complete 
grasp of the whole of the Apostle’s meaning impossible. 

The commentary generally quoted under the name of Ambrosiaster has an Augtsting 
interest as containing probably the earliest correct exposition of vv. 14-19. 
But it is more convenient to pass at once to St. Augustine. His exposition 
of this passage was to all appearance quite independent of that of any of his 
predecessors. 

The most complete exposition of the ninth chapter of Romans is found in 
the treatise 4d Simplictanum, i. qu. 2, written about the year 397, and all the 
leading points in this exposition are repeated in his last work, the Opus 
trperfectum contra Iulianum, i. 141. The main characteristics of the 
commentary are that (1) he ascribes vy. 14-19 to St. Paul himself, and considers 
that they represent his own opinions, thus correcting the false exegesis of Origen 
an! Chrysostom, and (2) that he takes a view of the passage exactly opposite 
to that of the latter. The purpose of St. Paul is to prove that works do 
not precede grace but follow it, and that Election is not based on foreknowledge, 
for if it were based on foreknowledge then it would imply merit. Ad Simplie. 
i. qu. 2,§ 2 Uf scilicet non se quisgue arbitretur ideo percepisse gratiam, quia 
bene operatus est; sed bene operari non posse, nist per fidem perceperit 
gratiam...§ 3 Prima est igitur gratia, secunda opera bona. The instance 
of Jacob and Esau proves that the gift of the Divine grace is quite gratuitous 
and independent of human merit—that grace in fact precedes faith. § 7 Vemo 
enim credit qui non vocatur ... Ergo ante omne meritum est gratia. Even 
the will to be saved must come from God. isi etus vocatione non volumus. 
Andagain: § 10 Noluit ergo Esau et non cucurrit : sed et st voluisset et cucure 
risset, Det adiutorto pervenisset, gut ez etiam velle et currere vocando praee 
staret, nist vocationis contempiu reprobus fieret. It is then shown that God 
can call whom I Je will, if He only wills to make His grace congruous. Why 
then does He not do so? The answer lies in the incomprehensibility of the 
Divine justice. The question whom He will pity and whom He will not 


* For a translation of portions of this Commentary, we are indebted to the 
kindness of Mr W. J. Birkbeck, of Magdalen College, Oxford, 


Abelard. 


Agrives 


272 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ 1X. 6-29 


depends upon the hidden justice of God which no human standard can measure. 
§ 16 Sit igitur hoc fixum atque immobile in mente sobria pietate atque stabili 
in fide, quod nulla est iniguitas apud Deum: atgue ita tenacissime firmisst- 
meque credatur, id ipsum quod Deus cuius vult miseretur et quem vult obdurat, 
hoc est, cuius vult miseretur, et cuius non vult non miseretur, esse alicuius 
occultae atque ab humano modulo ixvestigabilis aequitatis; and so again, aegut- 
tate occultissima et ab humanis sensibus remotissima tudicat. God is always 
just. His mercy cannot beunderstood. Those whom He calls, He calls out of 
pity ; those whom He does not, He refuses to call out ofjustice. Itis not merit 
or necessity or fortune, but the depths of the wisdom and knowledge of God 
which distinguishes vessels of wrath from vessels of mercy. And so it is for 
the sake of the vessels of mercy that He postpones the punishment of the 
Seer of anger. They are the instruments of the safety of others whom 
pities. 

Enough has been said to show the lines of St. Augustine’s interpretation. 
Although from time to time there might be controversies about his views on 
Grace, and there might be a tendency to modify some of the harder sides of 
his system, yet his exegesis of this passage, as compared with that of Origen 
or Chrysostom, became supreme in the West. It influenced first the exegesis 
and doctrine of the Schoolmen, and then that of the Reformation and of Calvin. 

For the middle ages it may be sufficient to take Abelard (1079-1142) and 
Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274). Both were largely influenced by Augustine; 
but whereas in the case of Abelard the influence was only indirect, in 
Aquinas we have the clearest and most perfect example of the Augustinian 
exposition. 

Abelard (Migne clxxviii. 911) makes a somewhat strange division of the 
Epistle, attaching the exposition of ix. 1-5 to the end of chap. viii. He 
begins his fourth book with ix. 6. In vv. 6-13 he sees a vindication of the 
freedom of the Divine will in conferring grace, but only in relation to Jacob. 
‘That the election of Jacob,’ he says, ‘ that is the predestination, may remain 
unmoved.’ The choice depends solely on the Divine grace. Verses 14-19 he 
explains as the objection of an opponent, to which St. Paul gives an answer, 
ver. 20,‘ Who art thou?’ The answer is a rebuke to the man who would 
accuse God of iniquity. God may do what He will with those whom He has 
created: zo multo potius Deo licere quocunque modo voluerit creaturam suam 
tractare atque disponere, qui obnoxius nullo tenetur debito, antequam quid- 
guam illa promereatur. Men have no more right to complain than the 
animals of their position. There is no injustice with God. He does more 
for mankind by the impiety of Judas than by the piety of Peter. Quts enim 
fidelium nesciat, quam optime usus sit summa illa impietate Iudae, cuius 
exsecrabilé perditione totius humant generis redemptionem est operatus. 
Then he argues at some length the question why man should not complain, 
if he is not called as others are called to glory; and somewhat inconsistently 
he finds the solution in perseverance. God calls all, He gives grace to all, 
but some have the energy to follow the calling, while others are slothful 
and negligent. Sze e¢ Deo nobis quotidie regnum coelorum offerente, alius 
regni tpsius desiderio accensus in bonis perseverat operibus, alius im sua 
torpescit ignavia. On vv. 22, 23 he says God bore with the wickedness of 
Pharaoh both to give him an opportunity to repent, and that He might use 
his crimes for the common good of mankind. 

In contrast with the somewhat hesitating and inconsistent character of 
Abelard’s exposition, Aquinas stands out as one of the best and clearest com- 
mentaries written from the Augustinian standpoint. The modern reader must 
learn to accustom himself to the thoroughness with which each point is 
discussed, and the minuteness of the sub-divisions, but from few exponents will 
he gain so much insight into the phiiosophical questions discussed, or the 
logical difficulties the soiution of which is attempted, 


IX. 6-29.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 273 


The purpose of the section is, he says, to discuss the origin of Grace, to do 
which the Apostle makes use of the opportunity afforded by the difficulties 
implied in the rejection of the Jews. Ajostolus supra necessitatem et vir- 
tutem gratiae demonstravit : hic inctpit agere de origine gratiac, utrum ex sola 
Det electione detur, aut detur ex meritis praecedentium operum, occasione 
accepia ex eo, quod Tudaet qué videbantur divinis obseguizs mancipati, exct- 
derant @ gratia. In vv. 6-13 the errors of the Jews, of the Manichaeans 
(who believed that human actions were controlled by the stars which appeared 
at the time of their birth), of the Pelagians, of Origen (the pre-existence of 
souls) are condemned, and it is shown that God chose men, not because they 
were holy, but that they might be holy: uum alteri praceligit, non quia 
Sanctus erat, sed ut sanctus esset. In vv. 14-18 St. Paul shows from Scripture 
that there is no injustice either in Predestination or in Reprobation. God 
has predestined the just to life for merits which He has Himself conferred on 
them, the wicked to destruction for sins which come from themselves. Deus 
proposutt se puniturum malos propter peccata, quae a se ipsis habent non 
a Deo. Iustos autem proposuit se praemiaturum propter merita quae a se 
ipsts non habent. All lies in the will of God; we notice indeed that among 
other erroneous opinions one, that of mevita conseguentia gratiam,—the view 
apparently of Abelard—is refuted. There isno injustice. ‘ Distributive justice 
has a place in cases of debt, but not in cases of pity.” If a man relieves 
one beggar, but not another, he is not unjust; he is kind-hearted towards one. ~ 
Similarly if a man forgives only one of two offenders, he is not unjust ; he is 
merciful towards one, just towards the other. 

In the instance of Pharaoh two readings are discussed, servavi and excttavt. 
If the first be taken it shows that, as the wicked are worthy of immediate de- 
struction, if they are saved it is owing to the clemency of God; if the second, 
God does not cause wickedness, except by permitting it; He allows the 
wicked by His good judgement to fall into sin on account of the iniquity they 
have committed. Quod guidem non est intelligendum hoc modo quod Deus 
ts homine causat malitiam, sed est intelligendum permissive, quia scilicet in 
tusto suo tudicio permittit aliqguos ruere in peccatum propter praecedentes 
intquitates. Deus mealitiam ordinat non causat. In vv. 19-24 he says 
there are two questions. (1) Why, speaking generally, should He choose some 
men and not choose others? (2) Why should He choose this or that man and 
not someone else? The second of these is treated in vv. 19-21; to it there is 
no answer but the righteous will of God. No man can complain of heing 
unjustly treated, for all are deserving of punishment. The answer to the first 
ig contained in vv. 22-24. In order to exhibit both His justice and His 
mercy, there must be some towards whom He shows His justice, some 
towards whom He can show His mercy. The former are those who are naturally 
fitted for eternal damnation: God has done nothing but allow them to do 
what they wish. Vasa afta in interitum he defines as t se habentia aptitu- 
dinem ad aeternam damnationem; and adds Hoe autem solus Deus circa eos 
agit, quod eos permittit agere quae concupiscunt. He has in fact borne with 
them both for their own sakes, and for the sake of those whom He uses to 
exhibit the abundance of His goodness—a goodness which could not be 
apparent unless it could be contrasted with the fate of the condemned. 
Signanter autem dicit (ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae| guia ipsa con- 
demnatie et reprobatio malorum quae est secundum Dei iustitiam, manifestat 
et commenda: sanctorum gloriam qui ab tpsa talé miseria liberantur. 

The antithesis which was represented among patristic commentators by 
Augustine and Chrysostom was exaggerated at the Reformation by Calvin 
and Arminius. Each saw only his own side. Calvin followed Augustine, 
and exaggerated his harshest teaching: Arminius showed a subtle power of 
finding Freewill even in the most unlikely places. 

The object of St. Paul, according to Calvin, is to maintain the freedom of 


Catvin, 


Arminius 


274 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (Ix. 6-29. 


the Divine election. This is absolutely gratuitous on God’s part, and quite 
independent of man. In the salvation of the just there is nothing above 
God’s goodness, in the punishment of the wicked there is nothing above His 
severity: the one He predestinates to salvation, the other to eternal damna- 
tion, This determination is quite independent of foreknowledge, for there 
can be nothing in man’s fallen nature which can make God show kindness to 
him. The predestination of Pharaoh to destruction is dependent on a just 
but secret counsel of God: the word ‘to harden’ must be taken not only Zer- 
missive, but as signifying the action of the Divine wrath. The ruin of the 
wicked is described not as foreseen, but as ordained by His will and counsel. 
It was not merely foreknown, but, as Solomon says, the wicked were created 
that they might perish. There is no means of telling the principle by which 
one is taken and another rejected; it lies in the secret counsels of God. 
None deserve to be accepted. The wrath of God against Pharaoh was post- 
poned that others might be terrified by the horrible judgement, that God’s 
power might be displayed, and His mercy towards the elect made more clear. 
As God is especially said to prepare the vessels of glory for glory, it follows 
that the preparation of the vessels of wrath equally comes from Him; other- 
wise the Apostle would have said that they had prepared themselves for 
destruction. Before they were created their fate was assigned to them. They 
were created for destruction. 

Arminius represents absolute antagonism on every point to these views. 
The purpose of the chapter is, he says, the same as that of the Epistle, 
looked at from a special point of view. While the aim of the Epistle is to 
prove ‘ Justification by Faith,’ in this chapter St. Paul defends his argument 
against Jews who had urged; ‘It overthrows the promises of God, therefore 
it is not true.’ By the words addressed to Rebecca He signified that He had 
from eternity resolved not to admit to His privileges all the children of 
Abraham, but those only whom He should select in accordance with the 

lan He had laid down. This plan was to extend His mercy to those who 
Rad faith in Him when He called and who believed on Christ, not to those 
who sought salvation by works. The passage that follows (ver. 14 ff.) 
shows that God has decided to give His mercy in His own way and on His 
own plan, that is to give it not to him who runs, to him that is who strives 
after it by works, but to him who seeks it in the way that He has appointed. 
And this is perfectly just, because He has Himself announced this as His 
method. Then the image of the potter and the clay is introduced to prove, 
not the absolute sovereignty of God, but His right to do what He will, that 
is to name His own conditions. He has created man to become something 
better than he was made. God has made man a vessel: man it is who 
makes himself a bad vessel. God decrees on certain conditions to make 
mer vessels of glory or vessels of wrath according as they do or do not fulfil 
these conditions. The condition is Justification by Faith. 

The systems of Arminius and Calvin were for the most part supreme 
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the exegesis of this chapter, 
although there were from time to time signs of historical methods of inter- 
pretation. Hammond for example, the English divine of the seventeenth 
century, in his paraphrase adopts methods very much beyond those of his 
time. But gradually at the beginning of the present century the defects or 
inadequacy of both views became apparent. It was quite clear that as 
against Arminius Calvin’s interpretation of chap. ix was correct, that St. 
Paul’s object in it was not to prove or defend justification by faith, but to 
discuss the question behind it, why it was that some had obtained justification 
by faith and others had not. But equally clear was it that Calvin’s inter- 
pretation, or rather much of what he had read into his interpretation, was 
inconsistent with chap. x, and the language which St. Paul habitually uses 
elsewhere. This apparent inconsistency then must be recognized. How 


IX. 30—X.13.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 275 


must it be treated? Various answers have been given. Fritzsche asserts Fritzsche. 
that St. Paul is carried away by his argument and unconsciously contradicts 
himself. ‘It is evident that what St. Paul writes is not only inconsistent with 
self but absolutely contradictory.’ If the Jews, it is asserted in chap. ix, 
were first chosen and then rejected, it was the malignity of God and not their 
Own perversity which caused their fall. If God had decreed their fall for 
a time (chap. xi), they could not be blamed if they had fallen; and yet in 
chap. x they are blamed. Multis sacpe accidit ut amicum fortunae fulmine 
percussum erecturé studio consolandi argumentis cupide uterentur neque ab 
omni parte firmis et quorum unum cum altero parum consisteret. Et 
pared stbi Paulus consensisset, st Aristotelis non Gamalielis alumnus 
' fuisset. 

Meyer admits the discrepancy but explains it differently. ‘As often as we Meyer. 
treat only one of the two truths, God zs absolutely free and all-suffictent, and 
man has moral freedom and ts in virtue of his proper self-determination and 
responsibility a liberum agens, the author of hts salvation or perdition, and 
carry it out in a consistent theory and therefore in a one-sided method, we 
are compelled to speak in such a manner that the other truth appears to be 
annulled.’...‘The Apostle has here wholly taken his position on the 
absolute standpoint of the theory of our dependence upon God, and that 
with all the boldness of clear consistency.’ ...‘He allows the claims of 
both modes of consideration to stand side by side, just as they exist side by 
side within the limits of human thought.’ According to Meyer in fact the 
two points of view are irreconcileable in thought, and St. Paul recognizing 
this does not attempt to reconcile them. 

It would be impossible to enumerate all the different varieties of opinion 
in the views of modern scholars. One more specimen will be sufficient. 
The solution offered by Beyschlag. He maintains that all interpretations are Beyschlag 
wrong which consider that St. Paul is concerned with anything either before or 
after this life. It is no eternal decree of God, nor is it the future destiny of 
mankind that he is dealing with. It is merely their position in history and 
in the world. Why has he chosen one race (the Jews) for one purpose, 
another race (the Egyptians) for another? He is dealing with nations not 
individuals, with temporal not spiritual privileges. 

The above sketch will present the main lines of interpretation of these 
verses, and will serve as a supplement to the explanation which has been 
given above. We must express our obligations in compiling it to Weber 
(Dr. Valentin), Avitésche Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Kapttels resp. der 
Verse 14-23 des Rimerbriefes, bis auf Chrysostomus und Augustinus ein 
schiesslich, and to Beyschlag (Dr. Willibald), Die paulinische Theodicee, 
Rémer IX-XT, who have materially lightened the labour incurred, 


ISRAEL ITSELF TO BLAME FOR ITS REJECTION. 


IX. 30-X.18. The reason that God has rejected Israel 
ts that, though they sought righteousness, they sought it in 
their own way by means of works, not in God’s way through 
faith. Hence when the Messiah came they stumbled as had 
been foretold (vv. 30-33). They refused to give up thew 
own method, that of Law, although Law had come to an end 
in Christ (x. 1-4), and this in spite of the fact that the old 

T3 


2976 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 80-X. 3. 


system was difficult if not impossible (ver. 5), while the new 
system was easy and within the reach of all (vv. 6-10), indeed 
universal in its scope (vv. 11-13). 


Tx. * What then is the position of the argument so far? One 
fact is clear. A number of Gentiles who did not profess to be 
in pursuit of righteousness have unexpectedly come upon it; 
a righteousness however of which the characteristic is that it is not 
earned by their own efforts but is the product of faith in a power 
outside them. ‘Israel on the other hand, the chosen people of 
God, although making strenuous efforts after a rule of moral and 
religious life that would win for them righteousness, have not 
succeeded in attaining to the accomplishment of such a rule. 
5? How has this come about? Because they sought it in their own 
way, not in God’s way. They did not seek it by faith, but their aim 
was to pursue it by a rigid performance of works. * And hence 
that happened to them which the Prophet Isaiah foretold. He 
spoke (xxviii. 16) of a rock which the Lord would lay in Zion 
and foretold that if a man put his trust in it, he would never 
have cause to be ashamed. But elsewhere (viii. 14) he calls it 
‘a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,’ implying that those 
who have not this faith will consider it a stumbling-block in their 
way. This rock is, as you have always been told, the Messiah. The 
Messiah has come; and the Jews through want of faith have 
regarded as a cause of offence that which is the corner stone of 
the whole building. 

xX. *Let me pause for a moment, brethren. It is a serious 
accusation that I am bringing against my fellow-countrymen. But 
I repeat that I do it from no feeling of resentment. How great is 
my heart’s good will for them! How earnest my prayer to God 
for their salvation! *For indeed as a fellow-countryman, as one 
who was once as they are, I can testify that they are full of zeal 
for God. That is not the point in which they have failed; it is 
that they have not guided their zeal by that true knowledge which 
is the result of genuine spiritual insight. * Righteousness they 
strove after, but there were two ways of attaining to it. The one 
was God’s method: of that they remained ignorant. The other 
was their own method: to this they clung blindly and wilfully. 
They refused to submit to God’s plan of salvation, 


X. 4-12.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 377 


“Their own method was based on a rigid performance of legal 
enactments. But that has been ended in Christ. Now there is 
a new and a better way, one which has two characteristics ; it is 
based on the principle of faith, and it is universal and for all men 
alike. *(1) It is based on the principle of faith. Hence it is that 
while the old method was difficult, if not impossible, the new is 
easy and open toall. The old method righteousness by law, that 
is by the exact performance of legal rules, is aptly described by 
Moses when he says (Lev. xviii. 5), ‘the man who does these 
things shall live,’ i.e. Life in al! its fulness here and hereafter was 
to be gained by undeviating strictness of conduct; and that con- 
dition we have seen (i. 18-iii. 20) was impossible of fulfilment. 
‘But listen to the proclamation which righteousness by faith 
makes to mankind. It speaks in well-known words which have 
become through it more real. ‘There is no need for you to say, 
Who will go up into heaven? Heaven has come to you; Christ 
has come down and lived among men. 7 There is no need to 
search the hidden places of the deep. Christ has risen. There 
is no need therefore to seek the living among the dead. You are 
offered something which does not require hard striving or painful 
labour. *® The word of God is very nigh thee, in thy heart and in 
thy mouth.’ And that word of God is the message of faith, the 
Gospel which proclaims ‘believe and thou shalt be saved’; and 
this Gospel we preach throughout the world. ° All it says to you 
is: ‘With thy mouth thou must confess Jesus as sovereign Lord, 
with thy heart thou must believe that God raised Him from the 
dead.’ "For that change of heart which we call faith, brings 
righteousness, and the path of salvation is entered by the con- 
fession of belief in Christ which a man makes at his baptism. 

1(2) This is corroborated by what the Prophet Isaiah said (xxviii. 
16) in words quoted above (ix. 33), the full meaning of which we 
now understand: ‘Everyone that believeth in Him (ie. the 
Messiah) shall not be ashamed.’ Moreover this word of his, 
‘everyone,’ introduces the second characteristic of the new method. 
It is universal. ‘And that means that it applies equally to Jew 
and to Greek. We have shown that the new covenant is open for 
Greeks as well as Jews; it is also true to say that the conditions 
demanded are the same for Jew as for Greek. The Jew cannot 


278 EPISTLE TO THE” ROMANS |IX. 30. 


keep to his old methods; he must accept the new. And this 
must be so, because there is for all men alike one Redeemer, 
who gives the wealth of His salvation to all those whoever they 
may be who call on His name. * And so the prophet Joel, fore- 
telling the times of the foundation of the Messianic kingdom, 
says (ii. 32) ‘Everyone that shall call on the name of the Lord 
(i. e. of the Messiah) shall be saved.’ When the last days come, in 
the times of storm and anguish, it is the worshippers of the 
Messiah, those who are enrolled as His servants and call on His 
Name, who will find a strong salvation. 


IX. 80-X. 21. St. Paul now passes to another aspect of the 
subject he is discussing. He has considered the rejection of 
Israel from the point of view of the Divine justice and power, he 
is now to approach it from the side of human responsibility. The 
concluding verses of the ninth chapter and the whole of the tenth 
are devoted to proving the guilt of Israel. It is first sketched out 
in ix. 30-33. Israel have sought righteousness in the wrong way, 
in that they have rejected the Messiah. Then St. Paul, over- 
whelmed with the sadness of the subject, pauses for a moment 
(x. 1, 2) to emphasize his grief. He returns to the discussion by 
pointing out that they have adhered to their own method instead 
of accepting God’s method (vv. 2, 3). And this in spite of 
several circumstances; (1) that the old method has been done 
away with in Christ (ver. 4); (2) that while the old method 
was hard and difficult the new is easy and within the reach of 
all (vv. 5-10) ; (3) that the new method is clearly universal and 
intended for all alike (vv. 11-13). At ver. 14 he passes to another 
aspect of the question: it might still be asked: Had they full 
opportunities of knowing? In wv. 14-21 it is shown that both 
through the full and universal preaching of the Gospel, and 
through their own Prophets, they have had every opportunity given 
them. 

80. ti otv époduev; The ody, as is almost always the case in 
St. Paul, sums up the results of the previous paragraph. What 
then is the conclusion of this discussion? ‘It is not that God’s 
promise has failed, but that while Gentiles have obtained “righteous- 
ness,” the Jews, though they strove for it, have failed.’ This summary 
of the result so far arrived at leads to the question being asked ; 
Why is it so? And that introduces the second point in St. Paul’s 
discussion—the guilt of the Jews. 

Stu €0vm w.t.A. There are two constructions possible for these 
words. 1. The sentence 6m... ry~ é« micrews may contain the 
answer to the question asked in ri ovv ¢potpev; This interpretation 


IX. 80, 31] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 279 


is probably right. The difficulty, however, is that nowhere else in 
this Epistle, where St. Paul uses the expression ré ody epodpev, does 
he give it an immediate answer. He follows it by a second 
question (as in ix. 14); and this is not a mere accident. It is 
a result of the sense of deliberation contained in the previous 
words with which a second question rather than a definite state- 
ment seems to harmonize. 2. The alternative rendering would be 
to take the words 6m .. . éP@acev, as such a second question. 
‘What shall we say then? Shall we say that, while Gentiles who 
did not seek righteousness have obtained it, Israel has not attained 
to it?’ The answer to this question then would be a positive 
one, not given directly but implied in the further one dari; ‘ Yes, 
but why?’—The difficulty in this construction, which must tell 
against it, is the awkwardness of the appended sentence d:xacootynv 
dé ryv ex mictews. Lipsius’ suggestion that ér: = ‘ because’ is quite 
impossible. 

€0vn: ‘heathen,’ not ‘the heathen’; some, not all: mam 
nonnulli pagani fidem tum Christo adtunxerant, ts mdypopa tov 
é6vav ad Christi sacra nondum accesserat. Fri. 

Sidxovra . . . xatéAaBe: ‘correlative terms for pursuing and 
overtaking’ (Field, Ofhum Norvicense, iii. p. 96). The metaphor 
as in rpéxovros (ver. 16) is taken from the racecourse, and probably 
the words were used without the original meaning being lost sight 
of: cf. x Cor. ix. 24. The two words are coupled together 
Exod. xv. 9; Ecclus. xi. 10; xxvii. 8; Phil. iii. 12; Herod. ii. 30; 
Lucian, Hermot. 77. Sioxew is a characteristic Pauline word occur- 
ring in letters of all periods: 1 Thess. (1), 1 Cor. (1), Rom. (4), 
Phil. (2), 1 Tim. (1), 2 Tim. (1). 

Sixacocdvyy Sé limits and explains the previous use of the word. 
‘But remember, (and this will explain any difficulty that you may 
have), that it was éx mioreas’: cf. iii, 22 Sixatocvwn dé Gcod: 1 Cor. 
ji. 6 codiav S€ Aadodpev & Tois Tehciois’ Godiay dé ov Tod aidves 
vourou. 

Some small variations of reading may be just noticed. In ver. 31 the 
second d:xaoovvns after els véuov of the TR. is omitted by decisive authority, 

as also is vépov (after Epyov) in ver. 32, and ydp after mpooéxoyay. In ver. 33 


mas read by the TR. has crept in from x. 11, and Western MSS. read ov pa 
xataicxvv6p to harmonize with the LXX. 


31. “Iopahd Sé x.7.4. These words contain the real difficulty of 
the statement, of which alone an explanation is necessary, and is 
given. ‘In spite of the fact that some Gentiles even without 
seeking it have attained righteousness, Israel has failed.’ 

vopov Sixatocdvys: ‘a rule of life which would produce righteous- 
ness’: cf. iii. 27 vdéuos miotews : Vii. 21. 

otk épGace: ‘did not attain it’; they are represented as con- 
tinually pursuing after something, the accomplishment of which 


280 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 31-383. 


as continually escapes them. All idea of anticipation has been 
iost in péave in later Greek, cf. Phil. iii. 16; Dan. iv. 19 (Theod.) 
epéacey «cis Tov ovpavdy. 

832. Ste ode ex mictews... mpocéxopav. Two constructions are 
possible for these words. (1) We may put a comma at épyev and 
supply diaxovres, Then the passage will run: ‘Why did they not 
attain it? because pursuing after it not by faith but by works they 
stumbled,’ &c. ; or (2) we may put a full stop at épyev and supply 
éSiwéav, ‘ Why did they not attain it? because they pursued after 
it not by faith but by works, they stumbled,’ &c. The sentence has 
more emphasis if taken in this way, and the grammatical construc- 
tion is on the whole easier, 

GAN’ ds ef Epywv. The os introduces a subjectiveidea. St. Paul 
wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that €€ pyev was 
a method by which vépor Sixacoovvns might be pursued. He there- 
fore represents it as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they 
thought they could gain it. So in 2 Cor. ii. 17 GAN’ as €€ eiduxpweias 
represents the purpose and aim of the Apostle; 2 Cor. xi. 17 
5 AadG, ov kata Kupiov Aad, GAN’ ws ev appootry represents an aspect 
from which his words may be regarded; Philem. 14 iva py os xara 
dvaykny 16 ayabév cov 9 GAdAa Kata éxovowv: ‘even the appearance 
of constraint must be avoided’ (cf. Lightfoot, ad Joc.). The as 
gives a subjective idea to the phrase with which it is placed, but the 
exact force must be determined by the context. 

Tpocékopay: mpockdnmrew twi means not ‘to stumble over by 
inadvertence,’ but ‘to be annoyed with,’ ‘ show irritation at.’ The 
Jews, in that the cross was to them a exdvdadtov, had stumbled 
over Christ, shown themselves irritated and annoyed, and expressed 
their indignation, see Grm. Thayer, sud voce. 

T@ AiO tod mpoockduparos: ‘a stone which causes men to 
stumble. Taken from the LXX of Is. viii. 14. The stone at 
which the Jewish nation has stumbled, which has been to them 
a cause of offence, is the Christ, who has come in a way, which, 
owing to their want of faith, has prevented them from recognizing 
or accepting Him, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 8. 

33. idou, TiOnut év Xudv «.7.A. The quotation is taken from the 
LXX of Is. xxviii. 16, fused with words from Is. viii. 14. The 
latter part of the verse is quoted again x. 11, and the whole in 
1 Pet. ii. 6. 

A comparison of the different variations is interesting. (1) The LXX 
reads liod éyd éuBaddAw eis 7a OeuédAra Si@v. In both the passages in the 
N.T. the words are idod ri€nu év Sav. (2) For the LXX Al@ov moduredAq 
éxArexrdv axpoywviatoy évrtpov, St. Peter reads dxpoywviatov éxAexTov Evripov : 
while St. Paul substitutes Ai@ov mpooxéduparos nat nérpay oxavdadov taken 
from Is. viii. 14 wal ovx ws AlOov mpookdpuar: cuvavrjcedbe OvSE Ws TéTpas 


mrwpatt. Here St. Peter ii. 8 agrees with St. Paul in writing wérpa cxavdadou 
for wérpas mTwpart. (3) The LXX proceeds eis ra Geuédua abras, which both 


IX. 33.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 281 


St. Peter and St. Paul omit. (4) The LXX proceeds xa? 6 morevow ob pr?) 
katacxvv67. Both St. Peter and St. Paul bring out the personal reference 
by inserting iw aiz@, while St. Paul reads «avaicxuv@qoeras and in x. 11 
adds was, 


én’ aizg. Personal, of the Messiah, ‘ He that believeth on Him 
shall not be ashamed.’ St. Paul inserts the words, both here and in 
X. I1, to emphasize the personal reference. If the reference were 
impersonal, the feminine would be required to agree with the 
nearest word zerpa, 

kato.cxuvOjcetat. Either an incorrect translation of the Hebrew, 
or based on a different reading. The RV. of Isaiah reads ‘ shall 
not make haste.’ 

In the O. T. neither of these passages has any direct Messianic 
reference. In both Jehovah is the rock founded on Zion. In 
Is. viii. 14 He is represented as a ‘stumbling-block’ to the 
unbeliever ; in Is. xxviii. 16 He is the strength of those that believe 
in Him. But from the very beginning the word Aiéos was applied 
to Christ, primarily with reference to Ps. cxviii. 22 ‘the Stone 
which the builders rejected’ (Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke 
xx. 17; Acts iv. 11 by St. Peter). The other passages in which 
the word Aiéos was used in the LXX came to be applied as here, 
and in Eph. ii. 20 dkpoyonaiov is used almost as a proper name. 
By the time of Justin Martyr Ai@os 1s used almost as a name of the 
Christ: ¢orw kai taira ovtws exovra ws déyets, Kai Ore maOntds Xpioros 
mpoepnrevOn pedAdew eivat Kai AiGos Kexhnrar (Dial. 36. p. 122 C. ed. 
Otto): 6 yap Xpiords Bacrdeds kai icpeds Kai Oeds Kai KUptos Kar dyyehos 
kat avOpwros Kat dpxiatpdryyos Kai didos (ib. 34. p. 112 D.) These 
quotations seem to imply that Aiéos was a name for the Messiah 
among the Jews, and that Justin wishes to prove that Christ fulfils 
that title, and this seems to be corroborated by quotations from 
Jewish writings, not only in later books but even earlier. In Is. 
Vili. 14, Sanhedrin 38. 1 Lilius Davidis non venit donec duae 
domus patrum ex Israele defictant, quae sunt Aechmalotarcha Baby- 
lonicus et princeps terrae Israeliticae g.d. Et ertt in Sancluarium 
et in lapidem percussionis et petram offensionts duabus domibus 
Israel, Is. xxviii. 16 is paraphrased by the Targum Jonathan, 
Ecce ego constituam in Sion regem, regem fortem, poteniem et 
terribilem ; corroborabo eum et confortabo eum dicit Propheta. 
Lustt autem qui crediderint haec cum venertt tribulatio non com- 
movebuntur, and some apparently read regem Messias regem 
polentem. Ps. cxviii. 22 is paraphrased by the same Targum, 
Puerum despexerunt aedificatores, qui futt inter filios Israel et 
merutt constitui rex et dominator. For these and other reff. see 
Schoettgen, ii. 160, 606. 

A comparison of Romans and 1 Peter shows that both Apostles 
agree in quoting the same passages together, and both have 


282 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IX. 33-X. 1, 


a number of common variants from the normal text of the LXX. 
This may have arisen from St. Peter’s acquaintance with the 
Romans; but another hypothesis may be suggested, which will 
perhaps account for the facts more naturally. We know that to 
prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, was the constant 
practice of the early Christians. Is it not possible that even as early 
as this there may have been collections of O. T. texts used for con- 
troversial purposes arranged according to their subjects, as were 
the later Zestzmonza of Cyprian, where one of the chapters is headed: 
Quod tdem et lapis dictus sit ( Test. ii. 16)? See on ix. 25, 26 supra. 

X. 1. There is no break in the argument between this chapter 
and vv. 30-33 of chap. ix; but before expanding this part of the 
subject, the Apostle pauses for a moment, impelled by his own 
strong feelings and the deep tragedy of his countryman’s rejection, 
to express his sorrow and affection. 


Marcion admitted into his text ver. 2-4, which he was able to use as 
a proof text of his fundamental! doctrine that the Jews had been ignorant of 
the ‘ higher God.” The whole or almost the whole passage which follows 
X. 5-xi. 32, he appears to have omitted, Zahn, p. 518. Tert. Adv. Mare. v. 13. 


&8ehpoi. The position increases the emphasis of a word always 
used by the Apostle when he wishes to be specially emphatic. 
The thought of the Christian brotherhood intensifies the contrast 
with the Israelites who are excluded. 

pév: without a corresponding 6é. The logical antithesis is given 
in ver. 3. 

ed8oxia: ‘good will,’ ‘ good pleasure,’ not ‘desire,’ which the word 
never means. 


The word ¢idoxia means ‘good pleasure’ either (1) in relation to oneself 
when it comes to mean ‘contentment,’ Ecclus. xxix. 23 él pucp@ Kal peyary 
evdoxiav éxe: ib, xxxv (xxxii). 14 of dpOpiCovres eipnaover evdoxiav: 2 Thess, 
i. 11 xal TAnpwon Tacay eddoKiay dyabwovrns Kal Epyov miaTEws ev duvauer: Ps: 
Sol. xvi. 12: or (2) in relation to others, ‘good will,’ ‘ benevolence,’ Ecclus. 
ix. 12 pa) evdonnons ev evdoxia doeBav: Phil. i, 15 Ties pey da POdvov at 
épiv, Teves 52 Kai dv’ evdoKiay Tov Xpiorov xnpvaoovo.w: (3) in this sense it 
came to be used almost technically of the good will of God to man, Eph. 
i.5 Kard tiv cddoxiay Tod OeAjyatos ab’rod; i. g Kara Thy evdoxiay abrov: 
Ps. Sol. viii. 39. 

The above interpretation of the word is different from that taken by Fritzsche 
(ad loc.), Lft. (ad Phil. i. 15), Grm. Thayer, Zex. (s. v.), Philippi and Tholuck 
(ad loc.). The word seems never to be used unqualified to mean ‘ desire’; the 
instance quoted by Lft. does not support it. ; 


4 Sénots: non orasset Paulus st absolute reprobats essent. Beng. 

eis cwrypiav = iva cwbdor; cf. ver. 4 cis dixacoovvmy and i. § els 
traxony micteas. 

The additions 4 before mpds rév @edy and éorw before els carnplay in 

the TR. are grammatical explanations. The reading rod "IopanaA for abra» 


may have been merely an explanatory gloss, or may have arisen through the 
verse being the beginning of a lesson in church services. 


xX. 2-4.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 283 


2. paptup® ydp. This gives the reason for St. Paul’s grief. 
He had been a Jew zepiocorepws (yhorns imdpxov (Gal. i ag; ef, 
Acts xxii. 3) and hence he knew only too well the extent both of 
their zeal and of their ignorance. 

LAdov cod. Obj. genitive: ‘zeal for God’ (not as in 2 Cor. 
xi. 2). An O. T. expression: Judith. ix. 4 e(jdecav tov (yAdv cov: 
Ps. Ixviii [lxix]; cxviii [cxix]. 139 6 Gjdos rod olkov cov: 1 Macc. 
ii. 58 Gros vopov. Jowett quotes Philo, Leg. ad Cacum, § 16 (Mang. 
ii. 562) ‘ Ready to endure death like immortality rather than suffer 
the neglect of the least of their national customs.’ St. Paul selects 
the very word which the Jew himself would have chosen to express 
just that zeal on which more than anything else he would have 
prided himself. 

kat éniyvwow. The Jews were destitute, not of ydcrs, but of 
the higher disciplined knowledge, of the true moral discernment 
by which they might learn the right way. eémiyroors (see Lft. on 
Col. i. 9, to whose note there is nothing to add) means a higher 
and more perfect knowledge, and hence it is used especially and 
almost technically for knowledge of God, as being the highest 
and most perfect form: see on i. 28 and cf. ill. 20. 

8. dyvooivtes ydp. This verse gives the reason for od kar 
éxiyvoow, and the antithesis to 9 pev eddoxia. dyvoodvres means ‘ not 
knowing,’ ‘ being ignorant of,’ not ‘misunderstanding.’ St. Paul 
here states simply the fact of the ignorance of his fellow-country- 
men ; he does not yet consider how far this ignorance is culpable: 
that point he makes evident later (vv. t4 sq.). 

Thy Tod Ceod Sixatocdvyy... Thy idiav. St. Paul contrasts two 
methods of righteousness. On the one side there was the righteous- 
ness which came from God, and was to be sought in the manner 
He had prescribed, on the other was a righteousness which they 
hoped to win by their own methods, and by their own merit. 
Their zeal had been blind and misdirected. In their eagerness to 
pursue after the latter, they had remained ignorant of and had not 
submitted to the method (as will be shown, a much easier one) 
which God Himself had revealed. 

iwetdynoay. Middle, ‘submit themselves,’ cf. Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. 
ii. 13; v.53; Winer, § xxxiv, 2. p. 327 E.T. 

The second d&:xatoodvny after léiav of the TR. is supported by & only 
among good authorities, and by Tisch. only among recent editors; it is 
omitted by ABDEP, Vulg. Boh. Arm., and many Fathers. 

4. téhos yap vépou x«.t.\. St. Paul has in the preceding verse 
been contrasting two methods of obtaining é:Kaoctivn; one, that 
ordained by God, as ix. 32 shows, a method ek wiorews; the other 
that pursued by the Jews, a method da véuov. The latter has ceased 
to be possible, as St. Paul now proves by showing that, by the coming 
of Christ Law as a means of obtaining righteousness had been 


284 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [x. 4 


brought to an end. The ydp therefore introduces the reason, not 
for the actual statement of ver. 3, that the Jews had not submitted 
to the Divine method, but for what was implied—that they were 
wrong in so doing. 

téhos: ‘end,’ ‘termination.’ Law as a method or principle of 
righteousness had been done away with in Christ. ‘Christ is the 
end of law as death is the end of life.’ Gif. Cf. Dem. C. Eubuliden, 
1306, 25 katroe maolv eorw avOpdmos rédos tov Biov Oavaros (quoted 
by Fri. and by many writers after him). 

The theological idea of this verse is much expanded in later 
Epistles, and is connected definitely with the death of Christ: Eph. 
ii. 15 ‘He abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances’; Col. ii. 14 ‘ Having 
blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, 
which was contrary to us: and He hath taken it out of the way, 
nailing it to the cross.’ This last passage is paraphrased by Lift. : 
‘Then and there [Christ] cancelled the bond which stood valid 
against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged 
us to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless 
tyrant. Ay, this very bond hath Christ put out of sight for ever, 
nailing it to His cross, and rending it with His body, and killing 
it in His death.” And as he points out, a wider reference must 
be given to the expression; it cannot be confined to the Jews. 
The ordinances, although primarily referring to the Mosaic law, 
‘will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral or social 
principles are embodied or religious duties defined ; and the “ bond” 
is the moral assent of the conscience which (as it were) signs and 
seals the obligation.’ 

‘ Although the moral law is eternal, yet under the Gospel it loses 
its form of external law, and becomes an internal principle of life.’ 
Lid. 

vénou: ‘Law’ as a principle (so Weiss, Oltramare, Gif.), not 
the Law, the Mosaic Law (so the mass of commentators). It is 
not possible indeed to lay stress on the absence of the article here, 
because the article being dropped before redos it is naturally also 
dropped before vopou (see on ii. 13), and although St. Paul might 
have written 16 yap réAos rod védpou, yet this would not exactly have 
suited his purpose, for ré\os is the predicate of the sentence thrown 
forward for emphasis. But that the application of the term must 
be general is shown by the whole drift of the argument (see below), 
by the words arti 76 moreviovre proving that the passage cannot be 
confined to the Jews, and consequently not to the Mosaic law, and 
by the correct reading in ver. 5 tyv éx véuou (see critical note). 

The interpretation of this verse has been much confused owing 
to incorrect translations of réAos (fulfilment, aim), the confusion of 
sduos and 6 véuos, and a misapprehension of the drift of the passage. 


X. 4, 5.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 285 


That the version given above is correct is shown (1) by the mean- 
ing of réAos. It is quite true that Christ is the reAciwois of the 
Law, that in Him what was typical has its fulfilment; but reAos 
never means reAciwos (as it is taken here by Orig. Erasmus, &c.). 
Again, it is equally true that the Law is the ra:daywyds that brings 
men to Christ, and that Christ can be described as the object or 
goal of the Law (as the passage is taken by Chrys., other fathers, 
and Va. amongst English commentators): but réAos is only used 
once in this sense in St. Paul’s Epistles (1 Tim. i. 5), Xpeorés would 
become the predicate, reAos would then require the article, and vépos 
would have to be interpreted of the Jewish Law. The normal 
meaning of the word, and the correct one here, is that of ‘ termina- 
tion” (so Aug. De W. Mey. Fri. Weiss, Oltramare); (2) by the 
meaning of vépos (see above). This is interpreted incorrectly of the 
Jewish Law only by almost all commentators (Orig. Chrys. ami 
all the Fathers, Erasmus, Calv. De W. Mey. Va.); (3) by the 
context. This verse is introduced to explain ver. 3, which asserts 
that of two methods of obtaining righteousness one is right, the 
other wrong. St. Paul here confirms this by showing that the one 
has come to an end so as to introduce the other. It is his object 
to mark the contrast between the two methods of righteousness 
and not their resemblance. 

But the misinterpretation is not confined to this verse, it colours 
the interpretation of the whole passage. It is not St. Paul’s aim to 
show that the Jews ought to have realized their mistake because 
the O. T. dispensation pointed to Christ, but to contrast the two 
methods. It is only later (vv. 14 f) that he shows that the Jews 
had had full opportunities and warnings. 

eis Stxarocuvny Tayti To motevovit: ‘so that dicarocury Inay come 
to everyone that believes, ‘so that everyone by believing may 
obtain deaocuvy, 


Omni credenti, tractatur 73 credenti ¥. 5 3q.,73 omni ¥.113q. sayrl, 
omni ex tudacis et gentibus. Beng. 


5-10. St. Paul proceeds to describe the two modes of obtaining 
&xaocivy in language drawn from the O. T., which had become 
proverbial. 

5. Mwoijs yap ypddet «tA. Taken from Lev. xviii. 5, which is 
quoted also in Gal, ii. 12. The original (4 nowqoas avOpanos (yoeras 
€v aurois) is slightly modified to suit the grammar of this passage, 
TH Sixcasocuvny Thy ex vépou being made the object of romeas. St. Paul 
quotes the words to mean that the condition of obtaining life by 
law is that of fulfilment, a condition which in contrast to the other 
method described immediately afterwards is hard, if not im- 
possible. On this difficulty of obeying the law he has laid stress 
again and again in the first part of the Episile, and it is this 


286 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 5-8. 


that he means by rév vépow rév évrohdy in Eph. ii, 1§ (quoted 
above). 

{yjcerat: shall obtain life in its deepest sense both here and 
hereafter (see pp. 180, 196). 


There are a number of small variations in the text of this verse. (1) 57 
is placed before 7ijv dixarocvvny by N* A D*, Vulg. Boh., Orig.-lat., afteryéuou 
by X°BD°EFGKLP &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &e. (2) é« vdpov is read 
by NB, é« rot vépyou by the mass of later authorities. (3) 5 momoas is 
read without any addition by N*A DE, Vulg., Orig.-Jat., abré is added by 
BFGKLP &c,, Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c., eam by d**e}. (4) &v@pwmos is 
om. by F G, Chrys. (5) év atr7 is read by NAB minusc. pauc., Vulg. Boh. 
Orig.-lat., €v atrots DEF GK LP &c. Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c. 

The original text was ét¢ tiv Sikarocivyy ri é« vduou 6 momoas GvOpwmos 
Qnoera ev atti. The alteration of ard... airois came from a desire to 
make the passage correspond with the LXX, or Gal. iii. 12 (hence the 
omission of avépw7os), and this necessitated a change in the position of 571. 
Tov vépou arose from an early misinterpretation. The mixed text of B ypapa 
Thy Sixacooivny tiv Ex vouou Ste 6 Tomoas avTa GvOparmos Cyoeras év adry and 
of D ypade S71 Tv Sixacotyny Tijy ex Tod vopov 6 Tommoas avOpwmos Caceras 
év avtois are curious, but help to support 8 A Vulg. Boh. 


6-8. The language of St. Paul in these verses is based upon the 
LXX of Deut. xxx. 11-14. Moses is enumerating the blessings of 
Israel if they keep his law: ‘if thou shalt obey the voice of the 
Lord thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which 
are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the Lord thy 
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul’; he then goes on 
(the RV. translation is here modified to suit the LXX): ‘” [ For this 
commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard 
for thee, nor is it far from thee. ™ Not in heaven above] saying, 
Who shall go up for us into heaven [and receive it for us, and having 
heard of it we shall do it? **Nor is it beyond the sea], saying, 
Who will go over to the further side of the sea for us, [and receive it 
for us, and make it heard by us, and we shall do it?] ™“ But the 
word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, [and in thy 
hands, that thou mayest do it].’ The Apostle selects certain words 
out of this passage and uses them to describe the characteristics of 
the new righteousness by faith as he conceives it. 


It is important to notice the very numerous variations between the 
quotation and the LXX. In the first place only a few phrases are 
selected: the portions not quoted are enclosed in brackets in the translation 
given above. Then in those sentences that are quoted there are very con- 
siderable changes: (1) for the Aéyowv of the LXX, which is an ungrammatical 
translation of the Hebrew, and is without construction, is substituted yp) 
einjs ev tp Kapdig cov from Deut. viii. 17, ix. 4: (2) for tis Siamepace Hyutv els 
70 mépay THs Oadacons is substituted ris xataBnoerat eis TH” GBvecor in order 
to make the passage better suit the purpose for which it is quoted: (3) in 


+ The Bohairic Version is quoted incorrectly in support of this reading. 
The cam read there does not imply a variant, but was demanded by the idiom 
of the language. 


x. 6.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 287 


ver. 8 the words ofd8pa... & tais yepot cov are omitted (this agrees with 
the Hebrew), as also vroeiy avd. 


6. Hf 82 ex miotews Sikatocdvyn obtw Aéyet. It is noticeable that 
St. Paul does not introduce these words on the authority of Scripture 
(as ver. 11), nor on the authority of Moses (as ver. 5), but merely 
as a declaration of righteousness in its own nature. On the 
person:fication compare that of Wisdom in Prov. i. 20; Lk. xi. 49; 
of apaxdnos Heb. xii. 5. 

tis dvaBycerar eis tov otpavév; In the original passage these 
words mean: The law which I command you is not far off, it is 
not in heaven, so that you will have to ask, Who will go up to bring 
it down for us? it is very near and not hard to attain. St. Paul 
uses the same words to express exactly the same idea, but with 
a completely different application. ‘The Gospel as opposed to 
the Law is not difficult or hard to attain to.’ 

Toit €ort, Xpiorov Katayayev: ‘that is to say, to bring Christ 
down.’ Just as Moses had said that there was no need for anyone 
to go up into heaven to bring down the law, so it is ttue—far more 
true indeed—to say that there is no need to go into heaven to 
bring down the object of faith and source of righteousness—Christ. 
Christ has become man and dwelt among us. Faith is not a 
difficult matter since Christ has come. 

The interpretations suggested of this and the following verses 
have been very numerous. rfodr gory occurs three times in this 
passage, and we must give it the same force in each place. 
In the third instance (ver. 8) it is used to give a meaning or 
explanation to the word 76 ja, which occurs in the quotation ; it 
introduces in fact what would be technically known as a ‘ Midrash’ 
on the text quoted (so Mey. Lid. Lips. and apparently Va. Gif.). 
That is the meaning with which the phrase has been used in 
ix. 8, and is also the meaning which it must have here. The 
infinitive cannot be dependent on rodr’ gore (for in all the passages 
where the phrase is used the words that follow it are in the same 
construction as the words that precede), but is dependent on 
avaByoerat which it explains: so Xen. Jem. I. v.2 (Goodwin, Greek 
Moods and Tenses, § 97) <i Bovdoipeba 76 emurpApar 4 mraidas wadedeat, 
7 xejpara Siaseéoa. In this and similar cases it is not necessary to 
emphasize strongly the idea of purpose as do Fri. (mempe uf Christum 
in orbem terrarum deducat) and Lips. (ndémlich um Christum herabgu- 
holen), the infinitive is rather epexegetical (so apparently Va. Gif.). 
The LXX here reads ris dvaBnoerae. . . kat An Wera; the construction 
is changed because roir’ éorw xai xardée would hardly have been 
clear. 

Of other interpretations, some do not suit the grammar. ‘That 
would be the same thing as to say Who will bring Christ down?’ 
would require tis carafe: rav Xpiordv. Weiss translates ‘that would 


288 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 6-8. 


be the same thing as to bring Christ down,’ apparently making 
the infinitive dependent on rodr’ ésrw. Other translations or para- 
phrases do not suit the context: ‘Do not attempt great things, 
only believe’: or, ‘Do not waver and ask, Is Christ really come? 
only believe.’ The object of the passage is not to exhort to faith 
or to show the necessity of faith—that has been done in the early 
part of the Epistle; but to prove that the method of faith was one 
which, for several reasons, should not have been ignored and left 
on one side by the Jews. 

7. 7, Tis xataByoera .. . dvayayeiv: ‘nor is it necessary to 
search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead.’ St. Paul 
substitutes tis kataBnoera eis tv G8vocov for the more ordinary ris 
Stamepace nuiv cis 1d mépav tis Oaddoons, both because it makes a 
more suitable contrast to the first part of the sentence, and because 
it harmonizes better with the figurative meaning he wishes to draw 
from it. a8vocos in the O. T. meant originally the ‘ deep sea,’ ‘ the 
great deep’ or ‘the depths of the sea,’ Ps. cvi (cvii). 26 avaai- 
vovow €ws TOY ovpavary, Kai KataBaivovow Ews trav aBiaowr, and the deep 
places of the earth, Ps. Ixx (Ixxi). 20 kcal &k tév d8icowr ths yas 
madw dvnyayés pe, and so had come to mean Tartarus or the Lower 
World; rév 82 raprapov rijs a8vccou Job. xli. 23, where the reference 
to raprapos is due to the LXX; cf. Eur. Phoen. 1632 (1605) raprapov 
aBvooa xdopata. Elsewhere in the N. T. it is so used of the abode 
of demons (Luke viii. 31) and the place of torment (Rev. ix. 1), 
This double association of the word made it suitable for St. Paul’s 
purpose; it kept up the antithesis of the original, and it also 
enabled him to apply the passage figuratively to the Resurrection of 
Christ after His human soul had gone down into Hades. 

On the descensus ad inferos, which is here referred to in indefinite 
and untechnical language, cf. Acts ii. 27; 1 Peteriii.r9; iv. 6; and 
Lft. on Ign. Magn. ix; see also Swete, Apost.-creed, p. 57 ff. 

8. 7d fijpo tis mlotews. ‘The message, the subject of which is 
faith’; mores does not mean ‘ the faith,’ i.e. ‘the Gospel message ’ 
(Oltramare), but, as elsewhere in this chapter, faith as the principle 
of righteousness. Nor does the phrase mean the Gospel message 
which appeals to faith in man (Lid.), but the Gospel which preaches 
faith, cf. x. 17. On pia cf. 1 Peter i. 25 ro 8€ pyya Kupiou peves 
eis Tov aiava, TovTo dé core TO PHua TO evayyeAtoOer Eis Tuas. 

8 xnyptccopev. This gives the reason why the new way of 
righteousness is easy to attain, being as it is brought home to every 
one, and suggests a thought which is worked out more fully in 
ver. 14 f. 

In what sense does St. Paul use the O. T. in w. 6-8? The 
difficulty is this, In the O. T. the words are used by Moses of 
the Law: how can St. Paul use them of the Gospel as against the 
Law? 


x. 8.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 289 


The following considerations will suggest the answer to be given : 

(1) The context of the passage shows that there is no stress 
laid on the fact that the O. T. is being quoted. The object of the 
argument is to describe the characteristics of diaoctvy x tictews, 
not to show how it can be proved from the O. T. 

(2) The Apostle carefully and pointedly avoids appealing to 
Scripture, altering his mode of citation from that employed in the 
previous verse. Mosen non ctitat, guia sensum Mosts non sequitur, 
sed tantum ab illo verba mutuatur, Vatablus, ap. Crit. Sacr. ad loc. 

(3) The quotation is singularly inexact. An ordinary reader 
fairly well acquainted with the O. T. would feel that the language 
had a familiar ring, but could not count it as a quotation. 

(4) The words had certainly become proverbial, and many 
instances of them so used have been quoted. Philo, Quod omn. 
prob. lib. § 10 (quoted by Gifford), ‘And yet what need is there 
either of long journeys over the land, or of long voyages for the 
sake of investigating and seeking out virtue, the roots of which the 
Creator has laid not at any great distance, but so near, as the wise 
law-giver of the Jews says, “They are in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart, and in thy hands,” intimating by these figurative expressions 
the words and actions and designs of men?’ Bava Mezza, f. 94.1 
(quoted by Wetstein) S? guts dixertt muliert, St adscenderis in 
jirmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, erts mtht desponsata, haec 
conditio frustranea est; 4 Ezraiv.8 dicebas mthi fortassis: In abys- 
sum non descendi, neque tn infernum adhuc, neque tn coelis unguam 
ascend? ; Baruch iii. 29, 30 Tis aveBn cis Tov ovpavoy Kai E\aBev ait7py, 
kai kateBiSacev ait ex Tav vededav; Tis OteBn mepav tas GaXaoons Kal 
evpev airy (of Wisdom); /uézlees xxiv. 32 ‘For even if he had 
ascended to heaven, they would bring him down from there... 
and even if he descends into SheGl, there too shall his judgement 
be great’; cp. also Amos ix. 2. 

(5) St. Paul certainly elsewhere uses the words of Scripture in 
order to express his meaning in familiar language, cf. ver. 18 ; xi. I. 

For these reasons it seems probable that here the Apostle does 
not intend to base any argument on the quotation from the O. T., 
but only selects the language as being familiar, suitable, and pro- 
verbial, in order to express what he wishes to say. 

It is not necessary therefore to consider that St. Paul is interpret- 
ing the passage of Christ by Rabbinical methods (with Mey. Lid. 
and others), nor to see in the passage in Deuteronomy a prophecy 
of the Gospel (Fri.) or a reference to the Messiah, which is certainly 
not the primary meaning. But when we have once realized that no 
argument is based on the use of the O. T., it does not follow that 
the use of its language is without motive. Not only has it a 
great rhetorical value, as Chrysostom sees with an orator’s instinct : 
*he uses the words which are found in the O. T., being always at 


290 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 8-12. 


pains to keep quite clear of the charges of love of novelties and of 
opposition to it’; but also there is to St. Paul a correspondence 
between the O. T. and N. T.: the true creed is simple whether 
Law on its spiritual side or Gospel (cf. Aug. De Natura e¢ Gratia, 
§ 83). 

9. St. édv Spodoyyons «7.4. This verse corresponds to and 
applies the preceding verse. The subject of the pjua which is 
preached by the Apostles is the person of Christ and the truth 
of His Resurrection. Kvpios refers to ver. 6, the Resurrection 
(Gre 6 Ocds adrov ifyespev €x vexpav) to ver. 7. The power of Christ _ 
lies in these two facts, namely His Incarnation and His Resur- 
rection, His Divine nature and His triumph over death. What 
is demanded of a Christian is the outward confession and the 
inward belief in Him, and these sum up the conditions necessary 
for salvation. 


The ordinary reading in this verse is éd» Sporoyjons év 7 ordpart gov 
Kuptov “Incoiv, for which WH. substitute 7d pjya ev TO ordpati gov bre 
Kupcos “Inoots. 1d pjya has the authority of B71, Clem.-Alex. and perhaps 
Cyril, 67: K. I, of B, Boh., Clem.-Alex. and Cyril 2/3. The agreement in 
the one case of B and Boh., in the other of B and Clem.-Alex. against nearly 
all the other authorities is noticeable. 


10. xapSia yap morederat x.t.A. St. Paul explains and brings 
out more fully the application of the words he has last quoted. The 
beginning of the Christian life has two sides: internally it is the 
change of heart which faith implies; this leads to righteousness, 
the position of acceptance before God: externally it implies the 
‘confession of Christ crucified’ which is made in baptism, and this 
puts a man into the path by which in the end he attains salvation; 
he becomes caléuevos. 

11. Adyet yap 4 ypady x.tA. Quoted from Is. xxviii. 16 (see 
above, ix. 33) with the addition of mas to bring out the point on 
which emphasis is to be laid. St. Paul introduces a proof from 
Scripture of the statement made in the previous verse that faith is 
the condition of salvation, and at the same time makes it the 
occasion of introducing the second point in the argument, namely, 
the universal character of this new method of obtaining righteous- 
ness. 

In ver. 4 he has explained that the old system of 8ixavootvy éx 
vonov has been done away with in Christ to make way for a new 
one which has two characteristics: (1) that it is é« miorews: this has 
been treated in vv. 5-10; (2) that it is universal: this he now 
proceeds to develope. 

12. o8 ydp éot. Stactod} “louSatou te kat “EAAnvos. St. Paul 
first explains the,meaning of this statement, namely, the universal 
character of the Gospel, by making it clear that it is the sole 
method for Jews as well as fur Gentiles. This was both a warning 


X. 12, 13.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 291 


and a consolation for the Jews. A warning if they thought that, 
in spite of the preaching of the Gospel, they might seek salvation 
in their own way; a consolation if once they realized the burden 
of the law and that they might be freed from it. The Jews have 
in this relation no special privileges (cf. i. 16; ii. 9, 10; ill. 9; 
1 Cor. i. 24; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. rr); they must obtain 
dixatoctvm by the same methods and on the same conditions as the 
Gentiles. This St. Paul has already proved on the ground that 
they equally with the Gentiles have sinned (iii. 23). He now 
deduces it from the nature and the work of the Lord. 

6 yap attés Kuptos wdévrwy, cf. 1 Cor. xii. 5. This gives the 
reason for the similarity of method for all alike: ‘it is the same 
Lord who redeemed all mankind alike, and conferred upon all alike 
such wealth of spiritual blessings.’ It is better to take Ktpios wavtov 
as predicate for it contains the point of the sentence, ‘The same 
Lord is Lord of all’ (so the RV.). 

Kuptos must clearly refer to Christ, cf. vv. 9, 11. He is called 
Kupwos ravtoy Acts x. 36, and cf. ix. 5, and Phil. ii. ro, 11. 

wAoutav: ‘abounding in spiritual wealth,’ cf. esp. Eph. iii. 8 
Tois €Oveow evayyeAtcacOa TO aveEtxviactoy TovTOSs Tod XpaTov. 

Tous émiKahoupevous aitov. emxadeicba tov Kipiov, OF More COr- 
rectly emtxadeio@at 76 dvoua Tod Kupiov, is the habitual LXX transla- 
tion of a common Hebrew formula. From the habit of beginning 
addresses to a deity by mentioning his name, it became a tech- 
nical expression for the suppliant to a god, and a designation 
of his worshippers. Hence the Israelites were of éemixadovpevor Tov 
Kuptov OF 76 dvoua Kupiov. They were in fact specially distinguished 
as the worshippers of Jehovah. It becomes therefore very signifi- 
cant when we find just this expression used of the Christians as 
the worshippers of Christ, 6 Kvpios, in order to designate them as 
apart from all others, cf. 1 Cor. i. 2 ov maou trois emixadoupévois 1d 
dvopa tod Kupiov nudv “Inood Xpuorod. There is a treatise on the 
subject by A. Seeberg, Die Anbetung des Herrn bet Paulus, Riga, 
1891, see especially pp. 38, 43-46. 

18. TGs yap ds Gv émxahéonrar. St. Paul sums up and clenches 
his argument by the quotation of a well-known passage of Scripture, 
Joel ii. 32 (the quotation agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew 
texts). The original passage refers to the prophetic conception of 
the ‘day of the Lord’ ‘The sun shall be turned into darkness, 
and the mocn into blood, before the great and terribie day of the 
Lord come.’ At that time ‘ whosoever shall call on the name of the 
Lord’ shall be saved. This salvation (cwOjcera, cf. ver. 9 codqon, 
10 ocwrnpiav), the Jewish expectation of safety in the Messianic 
kingdom when the end comes, is used of that Christian salvation 
which is the spiritual fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. 

Kupiov. The term Kips is applied to Christ by St Paul in 


292 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14-21. 


quotations from the O. T. in 2 Thess. i. 9; 1 Cor. ii. 163 x. 21, 
26; 2 Cor. iii. 16, and probably in other passages. 

This quotation, besides concluding the argument of wy. 1-13, 
suggests the thought which is the transition to the next point dis- 
cussed—the opportunities offered to all of hearing this message. 


ISRAEL'S UNBELIEF NOT EXCUSED BY WANT OF 
OPPORTUNITY. 


X. 14-21. This unbelief on the part of Israel was not 
owing to want of knowledge. Fully accredited messengers— 
such a body as ts necessary for preaching and for faith— 
have announced the Gospel. There is no land but has heard 
the voices of the Evangelical preachers (vv. 14-18). Nor 
was it owing to want of understanding. Their own Prophets 
warned them that it was through disobedience that they 
would reject God’s message (vv. 19-21). 


All then that is required for salvation is sincerely and genuinely 
to call on the Lord. But there are conditions preliminary to this 
which are necessary ; perhaps it may be urged, that these have not 
been fulfilled. Let us consider what these conditions are. Ifaman 
is to call on Jesus he must have faith in Him ; to obtain faith it is 
necessary that he must hear the call; that again implies that 
heralds must have been sent forth to proclaim this call. ™ And 
heralds imply a commission. Have these conditions been fulfilled? 
Yes. Duly authorized messengers have preached the Gospel. The 
fact may be stated in the words of the Prophet Isaiah (lii. 7) de- 
scribing the welcome approach of the messengers who bring news 
of thé return from captivity—that great type of the other, Messianic, 
Deliverance: ‘ How beautiful are the feet of them that preach good 
tidings.’ 

* But it may be urged, in spite of this, all did not give it a 
patient and submissive hearing. This does not imply that the 
message has not been given. In fact Isaiah in the same passage 
in which he foretold the Apostolic message, spoke also of the in- 
credulity with which the message is received (liii. 1) ‘ Lord, who 
hath believed our message?’ 7%” Which incidentally confirms what 
we were saying a moment ago: Faith can only come from the 


X. 14-21.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 293 


message heard, and the message heard implies the message sent— 
the message, that is, about Christ. 

18 But it may be alleged: We grant it was preached, but that 
does not prove that Israel heard it. Is that possible, when in the 
words of Psalm xix ‘the voices of God’s messengers went forth 
into all lands, and their words to the limits of the known world ?’ 

Or another excuse: ‘Israel heard but did not understand.’ 
Can you say that of Israel? From the very beginning of its history 
a long succession of its Prophets foretold the Divine scheme. 
Moses, to begin with, wrote (Deut. xxxii. 21) ‘I will excite you 
to jealousy at a nation outside the pale, that does not count as a 
nation at all. I will rouse your anger at seeing yourselves out- 
stripped by a nation whom you regard as possessing no intelligence 
for the things of religion.’ *°Isaiah too was full of boldness. In 
the face of his fellow-countrymen he asserted (Ixv. 1) that God’s 
mercies should be gained by those who had not striven after them 
(the Gentiles), * And then he turns round to Israel and says that 
although God had never ceased stretching out His arms to them 
with all the tenderness of a mother, they had received His call with 
disobedience, and His message with criticism and contradiction. 
The Jews have fallen, not because of God’s unfaithfulness or in- 
justice, not because of want of opportunity, but because they are a 
rebellious people—a people who refuse to be taught, who choose 
their own way, who cleave to that way in spite of every warning 
and of every message. 


14-21. This section seems to be arranged on the plan of sug- 
gesting a series of difficulties, and giving short decisive answers to 
each: (1) ‘ But how can men believe the Gospel unless it has been 
fully preached?’ (v. 14). Answer. ‘It has been preached as Isaiah 
foretold’ (ver. 15). (2) ‘ Yet, all have not accepted it’ (ver. 16). 
Answer. ‘That does not prove that it was not preached. Isaiah 
foretold also this neglect of the message’ (vv. 16, 17). (3) ‘ But 
perhaps the Jews did not hear’ (v. 18). Awswer. ‘ Impossible. 
The Gospel has been preached everywhere.’ (4) ‘But perhaps 
they did not understand’ (ver. 19). Answer. ‘That again is im- 
possible. The Gentiles, a people without any real knowledge, 
have understood. The real fact is they were a disobedient, self- 
willed people.’ The object is to fix the guilt of the Jews by re- 
moving every defence which might be made on the ground of want 
of opportunities, i 


294 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14, 16. 


‘The passage which follows (14-21) is in style one of the most obscure 
portions of the Epistle.’ This statement of Jowett’s is hardly exaggerated. 
‘The obscurity arises,’ as he proceeds to point out, ‘from the argument 
being founded on passages of the Old Testament.’ These are quoted without 
explanation, and without their relation to the argument being clearly 
brought out. The first difficulty is to know where to make a division in 
the chapter. Some put it after ver. 11 (so Go.) making vv. 11-21 a proof 
of the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles; some after ver. 13 (Chrys. 
Weiss, Oltr. Gif.) ; some after ver. 15 (Lid. WH. Lips.). The decision of 
the question will always depend on the opinion formed of the drift of the 
passage, but we are not without structural assistance. It may be noticed 
throughout these chapters that each succeeding paragraph is introduced by 
a question with the particle otv: so ix. 14 Ti obv épodpev; 30; xi. I, II. 
And this seems to arise from the meaning of the particle: it sums up the 
conclusion of the preceding paragraph as an introduction to a further step in 
the argument. This meaning will exactly suit the passage under consideration. 
‘The condition of salvation is to call on the Lord ’—that is the conclusion 
of the last section: then the Apostle goes on, ‘if this be so, what then (ovv) 
are the conditions necessary for attaining it, and have they been fulfilled?” 
the words forming a suitable introduction to the next stage in the argument. 
This use of ovy to introduce a new paragraph is very common in St. Paul. 
See especially Rom. v. 1, vi. J, xii. 1; Eph. iv. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 1; 2 Tim.ii 1, 
besides other less striking instances. It may be noticed that it is not easy 
to understand the principle on which WH. have divided the text of these 
chapters, making no break at all at ix. 29, beginning a new paragraph at 
chap. x, making a break here at ver. 15, making only a slight break at 
chap. xi, and starting a new paragraph at ver. 13 of that chapter at what 
is really only a parenthetical remark. 


X. 14,15. The main difficulty of these verses centres round two 
points: With what object are they introduced? And what is the 
quotation from Isaiah intended to prove? 

1. One main line of interpretation, following Calvin, considers 
that the words are introduced to justify the preaching of the Gospel 
to the Gentiles; in fact to support the was of the previous verse. 
God must have intended His Gospel to go to the heathen, for a duly 
commissioned ministry (and St. Paul is thinking of himself) has 
been sent out to preach it. The quotation then follows as a justi- 
fication from prophecy of the ministry to the Gentiles. The possi- 
bility of adopting such an interpretation must depend partly on the 
view taken of the argument of the whole chapter (see the General 
Discussion at the end), but in any case the logical connexion is 
wrong. Ifthat were what St. Paul had intended to say, he must have 
written, ‘ Salvation is intended for Gentile as well as Jew, for God 
has commissioned His ministers to preach to them: a commission 
implies preaching, preaching implies faith, faith implies worship, 
and worship salvation. The conversion of the Gentiles is the 
necessary result of the existence of an apostolate of the Gentiles.’ 
It will be seen that St. Paul puts the argument exactly in the 
opposite way, in a manner in fact in which he could never prove 
this conclusion. 

a. Roman Catholic commentators, followed by Liddon and 


X. 14.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 295 


Gore, considér that the words are introduced in order to justify an 
apostolic or authorized ministry. But this is to introduce into the 
passage an idea which is quite alien to it, and which is unnecessary 
for the argument. 

3. The right interpretation of the whole of this paragraph seems to 
be that of Chrysostom. The Jews, it has been shown, have negleoted 
God’s method of obtaining righteousness; but in order, as he desires, 
to convict them of guilt in this neglect, St. Paul must show that they 
have had the opportunity of knowing about it, that their ignorance 
(dyvoodvres ver. 3) is culpable. He therefore begins by asking what 
are the conditions necessary for ‘calling upon the Lord?’ and then 
shows that these conditions have been fulfilled. There may still 
be some question as to the meaning of the quotation. (1) It may 
be introduced merely as corroborative of the last chain in the 
argument (so most commentators). This need of a commissioned 
ministry corresponds to the joy and delight experienced when they 
arrive. Or better, (2) it may be looked upon as stating the fulfil- 
ment of the conditions. ‘Yes, and they have come, a fact that no 
one can fail to recognize, and which was foretold by the Prophet 
Isaiah.’ So Chrysostom, who sums up the passage thus: ‘If the 
being saved, then, came of calling upon Him, and calling upon 
Him from believing, and believing from hearing, and hearing from 
preaching, and preaching from being sent, and if they were sent, 
and did preach, and the prophet went round with them to point 
them out, and proclaim them, and say that these were they whom 
they showed of so many ages ago, whose feet even they praised 
because of the matter of their preaching; then it is quite clear that 
the not believing was their own fault only. And wee because 
God’s part had been fulfilled completely.’ 

14. mas obv émxadéowvtat. The word od», as often in St. Paul, 
marks a stage in the argument. ‘We have discovered the new 
system of salvation: what conditions are necessary for its acceptance?’ 
The question is not the objection of an adversary, nor merely 
rhetorical, but rather deliberative (see Burton, AZ. and T. § 169): 
hence the subjunctive (see below) is more suitable than the futuse 
which we find in ix. 30. The subject of émxa\écovra is implied in 
vv. 12, 13, ‘those who would seek this new method of salvation by 
calling on the name of the Lord.’ 


In this series of questions in vv. 14, 15 the MSS. vary between the sub- 
junctive and the future. Generally the authority for the subjunctive strongly 
preponderates: émaréowvra: NA BD EF G, morevowow NBDEF GP, 
anpifwov NABDEKLP. In the case of dxovcwow there is a double 
variation. N° A?(A /afet) B and some minuscules read dxovowow; NDEF 
GKP and some minuscules read dxovcovra; L etc., Clem.-Alex. Ath. 
Chrys. edd. Theodrt. and the TR. read dxovcovot. Here however the double 
variant makes the subjunctive almost certain. Although the form dxovcovat 
is possible in N.T. Greek, it is most improbable that it should have arisen as 


296 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 14, 16. 


a corruption from dxotcovra, and it is too weakly supported to be the 
correct reading. dxotowo.v, which will explain both variants and harmonizes 
with the other subjunctives, is therefore correct. B here alone among the 
leading MSS. is correct throughout. 


08 odx jKoucay: ‘how can they believe on Him whom they 
have not heard preaching?’ od is for eis rovrov ob: and as dxovew 
rivos Means not ‘to hear of some one,’ but ‘to hear some one 
preaching or speaking,’ it must be so translated, and what follows 
must be interpreted by assuming that the preaching of Christ’s 
messengers is identical with the preaching of Christ Himself. This 
interpretation (that of Mey. and Gif.), although not without diffi- 
culties, is probably better than either of the other solutions proposed. 
It is suggested that of may be for év, and the passage is translated 
‘of whom they have not heard’; but only a few instances of this 
usage are quoted, and they seem to be all early and poetical. 
The interpretation of Weiss, ob = where, completely breaks the 
continuity of the sentences. 

15. xnpigwow. The nominative is of knptocovres, which is implied 
iN knpvogortos. 

By means of this series of questions St. Paul works out the 
conditions necessary for salvation back to their starting-point. 
Salvation is gained by calling on the Lord; this implies faith. 
Faith is only possible with knowledge. Knowledge implies an 
instructor or preacher. A preacher implies a commission. If 
therefore salvation is to be made possible for everyone, there must 
have been men sent out with a commission to preach it. 

Ka0ds yéypamrat, ‘Q dpator ot wédes Tav edayyehiLopévaw dyad. 
By introducing this quotation St. Paul implies that the commis- 
sioned messengers have been sent, and the conditions therefore 
necessary for salvation have been fulfilled. ‘Yes, and they have 
been sent: the prophet’s words are true describing the glorious 
character of the Evangelical preachers.’ 

The quotation is taken from Isaiah lii. 7, and resembles the 
Hebrew more closely than our present LXX text. In the original 
it describes the messengers who carry abroad the glad tidings 
of the restoration from captivity. But the whole of this section of 
Isaiah was felt by the Christians to be full of Messianic import, and 
this verse was used by the Rabbis of the coming of the Messiah 
(see the references given by Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 179). St. 
Paul quotes it because he wishes to describe in O. T. language the 
fact which will be recognized as true when stated, and to show 
that these facts are in accordance with the Divine method. ‘St. 
Paul applies the exclamation to the appearance of the Apostles of 
Christ upon the scene of history. Their feet are epaio in his eyes, 
as they announce the end of the captivity of sin, and publish eipnyy 
(Eph. vi. 15 ro evayyéAvov ris eipnyns) made by Christ, through the 


X. 16, 16.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 297 


blood of His Cross, between God and man, between earth and 
heaven (2 Cor. v. 18-20; Eph. ii. 17; Col. i. 20); and all the 
blessings of goodness (ra dyafa) which God in Christ bestows on 
the Redeemed, especially S:xatoovvy.’ Liddon. 


There are two critical questions in connexion with this quotation: the 
reading of the Greek text and its relation to the Hebrew and to the LXX. 

(1) The RV. reads ds dpato: of modes tay ebayyeACouévew ayaa: the 
TR. inserts tay eva. elpqvnv after of modes. The balance of authority is 
strongly in favour of the RV. The clause is omitted by NABC minusc. 
pauc. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Orig. and Orig.-lat.: it is in- 
serted by DEF GK LP &c., Vulg. Syrr. (Pesh. Harcl.) Arm. Goth., Chrys. 
Tren.-lat. Hil. @/. The natural explanation is that the insertion has been 
made that the citation may correspond more accurately to the LXX. 
This end is not indeed altogether attained, for the LXX reads dxony eipnvys, 
and the omission might have arisen from Homoeoteleuton ; but these con- 
siderations can hardly outweigh the clear preponderance of authority. 

There is a somewhat similar difficulty about a second minor variation. 
The RV. reads dya@a with ABCDEFGP, Orig. Eus. Jo-~Damasc., the 
TR. has 7a d-ya6a with N etc. Clem.-Alex. Chrys. and most later authorities. 
Here the LXX omits the article, and it is difficult quite to see why it should 
have been inserted by a corrector; whereas if it had formed part of the 
original text he could quite naturally have omitted it. 

(2) The LXX translation is here very inexact. mapetpe ds Mpa émt rav 
épéav, ws médes evayyeACouévou akon eipnyys, ws evayyeA(Spevos ayaba. 
St. Paul’s words approach much more nearly to the Hebrew (RV.) ‘ How 
beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, 
that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth 
salvation.’ He shortens the quotation, makes it plural instead of singular 
to suit his purpose, and omits the words ‘ upon the mountains,’ which have 
only a local significance. 


16. G\X’ of wdvtes. An objection suggested. ‘Yet, in spite of 
the fact that this message was sent, all did not obey the Gospel.’ 
ov mavtes is a meiosis; Cf. ri yap ef qriotnoay Twes; (iii. 3). 

émyxoucay, like imeraynoay (ver. 3), seems to imply the idea of 
voluntary submission: cf. vi. 16, 17 SovAoi éacre @ imaxovere... 
Umynxovoarte S¢ éx xapdias cis bv mapeddOnre. 

7@ edayyeMw. The word is of course suggested by the quotation 
of the previous verse. 

“Hoatas yap A¢ye. x.t.A. ‘But this fact does not prove that no 
message had been sent; it is indeed equally in accordance with 
prophecy, for Isaiah, in a passage immediately following that in 
which he describes the messengers, describes also the failure of 
the people to receive the message.’ With ydp cf. Matt. i. 20 ff. 
The quotation is from the LXX of Is. lili. 1. Képre, as Origen 
pointed out, does not occur in the Hebrew. 

dkoy: means (1) ‘hearing,’ ‘the faculty by which a thing is 
heard’; (2) ‘the substance of what is heard,’ ‘a report, message.’ 
In this verse it is used in the second meaning, ‘who hath believed 
our report?’ In ver. 17, it shades off into the first, ‘faith comes 
by hearing.’ It is quite possible of course to translate ‘report’ or 


298 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 16-18. 


‘message’ there also, but then the connexion of idea with ver. 18 
4) ovK HKovoay is obscured. 

It has been questioned to whom St. Paul is referring in this and 
the preceding verses—the Gentiles or the Jews. The language is 
quite general and equally applicable to either, but the whole drift 
of the argument shows that it is of the Jews the Apostle is thinking. 
Grotius makes wv. 14 and 15 the objection of an opponent to which 
St. Paul replies in ver. 16 ff. 

17. dpa 4 miotts. ‘Hence may be inferred (in corroboration of 
what was said above) that the preliminary condition necessary for 
faith is to have heard, and to have heard implies a message.’ This 
sentence is to a certain extent parenthetical, merely emphasizing 
a fact already stated; yet the language leads us on to the excuse 
for unbelief suggested in the next verse. 

Sia fypatos Xpiotod: ‘a message about Christ.’ Cf. ver. 8 1d 
pia tis miotews & knpvooouev. St. Paul comes back to the phrase he 
has used before, and the use of it will remind his readers that this 
message has been actually sent. 


Xpiotod is the reading of NBC DE minusc. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh. Arm. 
Aeth. Orig.-lat. 2/2, Ambrst. Aug.—@eod of N° AD>K LP ail. pler., Syrt., 
Clem.-Alex. Chrys. Theodrt. 


St. Paul has laid down the conditions which make faith possible, 
a Gospel and messengers of the Gospel; the language he has used 
reminds his readers that both these have come. Yet, in spite of 
this, the Jews have not obeyed. He now suggests two possible 
excuses. 

18. ddd Adyw: ‘but it may be said in excuse: It is possible 
that those whom you accuse of not obeying the Gospel message 
have never heard of it?’ On py ov see Burton, WZ. and T. § 468. 

pevoovye: an emphatic corrective, ‘ with a slight touch of irony’ 
(Lid.); cf. ix. 20. 

eis Tacav Thy yay .t.A. St. Paul expresses his meaning in words 
borrowed from Psalm xix. (xviii.) 5, which he cites word for word 
according to the LXX, but without any mark of quotation. What 
stress does he intend to lay on the words? Does he use them 
for purely literary purposes to express a well-known fact? or does 
he also mean to prove the fact by the authority of the O. T. 
which foretold it? 

1. Primarily at any rate St. Paul wishes to express a well-known 
fact in suitable language. ‘What do you say? They have not 
heard! Why the whole world and the ends of the earth have 
heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such 
a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard?’ Chrys. 

2. But the language of Scripture is not used without a point. 
In the original Psalm these words describe how universally the 


X..18, 19.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 299 


works of nature glorify God. By using them St. Paul ‘compares 
the universality of the preaching of the Gospel with the universality 
with which the works of nature proclaim God.’ Gif. 

A second difficulty is raised by older commentators. As a matter 
of fact the Gospel had not been preached everywhere; and some 
writers have inverted this argument, and used this text as a proof 
that even as early as this Christianity had been universally preached. 
But all that St. Paul means to imply is that it is universal in its 
character. Some there were who might not have heard it; some 
Jews even might be among them. He is not dealing with indi- 
viduals. The fact remained true that, owing to the universal 
character of its preaching, those whose rejection of it he is con- 
sidering had at any rate as a body had the opportunities of hearing 
of it. 

19. add Adyo, ph *lopaijdA odk Eyvw ; a second excuse is suggested: 
‘surely it cannot be that it was from ignorance that Israel failed?’ 

(1) What is the meaning of the somewhat emphatic introduction 
of “IopajA? It has been suggested that it means a change of 
subject. That while the former passage refers to Gentiles, or 
to Gentiles as well as Jews, here the writer at last turns to Israel in 
particular. But there has been no hint that the former passage 
was dealing with the Gentiles, and if such a contrast had been 
implied "IcpayA would have had to be put in a much more pro- 
minent place, mepl d€ rod “Iopand A€yw, pi) ovK yyw; The real reason 
for the introduction of the word is that it gives an answer to 
the question, and shows the untenable character of the excuse. 
Has Israel, Israel with its long line of Prophets, and its religious 
privileges and its Divine teaching, acted in ignorance? When 
once ‘Israel’ has been used there can be no doubt of the answer. 

(2) But, again, what is it suggested that Israel has not known? 
As the clause is parallel with 2) ot« #xovcav, and as no hint is given 
of any change, the object must be the same, namely pjua Xpiorod, 
the message concerning the Messiah. All such interpretations as 
the ‘calling of the Gentiles’ or ‘the universal Preaching of the 
Gospel’ are outside the line of argument. 

(3) But how is this consistent with dyvooivres ver. 3? The 
contradiction is rather formal than real. It is true Israel’s zeal 
was not guided by deep religious insight, and that they clung 
blindly and ignorantly to a method which had been condemned}; 
but this ignorance was culpable: if they did not know, they might 
have known. From the very beginning of their history their 
whole line of Prophets had warned them of the Divine plan. 

(4) The answer to this question is given in three quotations 
from the O. T. Israel has been warned that their Messiah 
would be rejected by themselves and accepted by the Gentiles. 
They cannot plead that the message was difficult to understand; 


300 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X. 19-21. 


even a foolish people (it was foretold) would accept it, and thus 
stir up Israel to jealousy. Nor again can they plead that it was 
difficult to find; for Isaiah with great boldness has stated that men 
who never sought or asked for it would find it. The real reason 
was that the Israelites are a disobedient and a stubborn people, 
and, although God has all day long stretched forth His hands to 
them, they will not hear Him. 

mp@tos Mwofjs. «iGis Moojs. ‘Even as early in Israel’s history as 
Moses.’ 

éy® mwapalnddow Spas xt.A.: taken from Deut. xxxii. 21 sub- 
stantially according to the LXX (ipas is substituted for av-ovs). In 
the original the words mean that as Israel has roused God’s jealousy 
by going after no-gods, so He will rouse Israel’s jealousy by 
showing His mercy to those who are no-people. 

20. “Hoatas $€ drotokue. St. Paul’s position in opposing the 
prejudices of his countrymen made him feel the boldness of Isaiah 
in standing up against the men of his own time. The citation is 
from Isaiah Ixv. x according to the LXX, the clauses of the 
original being inverted. The words in the original refer to the 
apostate Jews. St. Paul applies them to the Gentiles; see on 
1X. 25, 26, 


B D*F G with perhaps Sah. and Goth. add &y twice before rots, a Western 
reading which has found its way into B (cf. xi. 6). It does not occur in 
NAC D°cELP etc., and many Fathers, 


21. mpds 8€ tov “lopatA A€yer «.7.A. This citation (Is. lxv. 2) 
follows almost immediately that quoted in ver. 20, and like it 
is taken from the LXX, with only a slight change in the order. 
In the original both this verse and the preceding are addressed 
to apostate Israel; St. Paul applies the first part to the Gentiles, 
the latter part definitely to Israel. 


The Argument of ix. 30-x. 21: Human Responsibility. 


We have reached a new stage in our argument. The first step 
was the vindication of God’s faithfulness and justice: the second 
step has been definitely to fix guilt on man. It is clearly laid 
down that the Jews have been rejected through their own fault. 
They chose the wrong method. When the Messiah came, instead 
of accepting Him, they were offended. They did not allow their 
zeal for God to be controlled by a true spiritual knowledge. And 
the responsibility for this is brought home to them. All possible 
excuses, such as want of opportunity, insufficient knowledge, 
inadequate warning, are suggested, but rejected. The Jews are 
a disobedient people and they have been rejected for their dis- 
obedience. 


IX. 30-X. 21.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 301 


Now it has been argued that such an interpretation is in- 
consistent with Chap. ix. That proves clearly, it is asserted, that 
grace comes to man, not in answer to man’s efforts, but in accord- 
ance with God’s will. How then can St. Paul go on to prove that 
the Jews are to blame? In order to avoid this assumed incon- 
sistency, the whole section, or at any rate the final portion, has 
been interpreted differently: vv. 11-21 are taken to defend the 
Apostolic ministry to the Gentiles and to justify from the O. T. the 
calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews: vv. 14, 15 
are used by St. Augustine to prove that there can be no faith 
without the Divine calling; by Calvin, that as there is faith 
among the Gentiles, there must have been a Divine call, and so 
the preaching to them is justified. Then the quotations in wv. 
18-21 are considered to refer to the Gentiles mainly; they are 
merely prophecies of the facts stated in ix. 30, 31 and do not 
imply and are not intended to imply human responsibility. 

An apparent argument in favour of this interpretation is sug- 
gested by the introductory words ix. 30, 31. It is maintained that 
two propositions are laid down there; one the calling of the 
Gentiles, the other the rejection of the Jews, and both these have 
to be justified in the paragraph that follows. But, as a matter 
of fact, this reference to the Gentiles is clearly introduced not as 
a main point to be discussed, but as a contrast to the rejection 
of Israel. It increases the strangeness of that fact, and with that 
fact the paragraph is concerned. This is brought out at once by 
the question asked é:a ri; which refers, as the answer shows, en- 
tirely to the rejection of Israel. If the Apostle were not condemning 
the Jews there would be no reason for his sorrow (x. 1) and the 
palliation for their conduct which he suggests (x. 2); and when 
we come to examine the structure of the latter part we find that 
all the leading sentences are concerned not with the defence of 
any ‘calling,’ but with fixing the guilt of those rejected : for example 
GAN’ ob mavres tmnjxovoay (Vv. 16), ddAa heya, pi) ovK Foveay; (v. 18), 
py “Iopand otk éyva; (v.19). As there is nowhere any reference 
to Gentiles rejecting the message, the reference must be to the 
Jews ; and the object of the section must be to show the reason why 
(although Gentiles have been accepted) the Jews have been rejected. 
The answer is given in the concluding quotation, which sums up 
the whole argument. It is because the Jews have been a dis- 
obedient and gainsaying people. Chrysostom, who brings out the 
whole point of this section admirably, sums up its conclusion as 
follows: ‘Then to prevent them saying, But why was He not 
made manifest to us also? he sets down what is more than this, 
that I not only was made manifest, but I even continued with 
My hands stretched out, inviting them. and displaying all the 
concern of an affectionate father, and a fond mother that is set on 


302 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (tx-xtI. 


her child. See how he has brought us a most lucid answet 
to all the difficulties before raised, by showing that it was from 
their own temper that ruin had befallen them, and that they are 
wholly undeserving of pardon,’ 

We must accept the interpretation then which sees in this 
chapter a proof of the guilt of the Jews. St. Paul is in fact 
looking at the question from a point of view different from that 
which he adopted in Chap. ix. There he assumes Divine Sovereignty, 
and assuming it shows that God’s dealings with the Jews are 
justified, Now he assumes human responsibility, and shows that 
assuming it the Jews are guilty. Two great steps are passed in 
the Divine Theodicy. We need not anticipate the argument, but 
must allow it to work itself out. The conclusion may suggest 
a point of view from which these two apparently inconsistent 
attitudes can be reconciled. 


Sz. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. 


In Chaps. ix—xi St. Paul, as carrying on a long and sustained 
argument, which, if not directed against Jewish opponents, discusses 
a question full of interest to Jews from a Jewish point of view, 
makes continued use of the O.T., and gives an opportunity for 
investigating his methods of quotation and interpretation. 

The text of his quotations is primarily that of the LXX. Ac- 
cording to Kautzsch (De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo Apostolo 
allegatis), out of eighty-four passages in which St. Paul cites the 
O. ‘I’. about seventy are taken directly from the LXX or do not 
vary from it appreciably, twelve vary considerably, but still show 
signs of affinity, and two only, both from the book of Job (Rom. 
xi. 35 = Job xli. 3 (11); 1 Cor. iii. 19 = Jobv. 13) are definitely in- 
dependent and derived either from the Hebrew text or some quite 
distinct version. Of those derived from the LXX a certain number, 
such for example as Rom. x. 15, show in some points a resemblance 
to the Hebrew text as against the LXX. We have probably not 
sufficient evidence to say whether this arises from a reminiscence 
of the Hebrew text (conscious or unconscious), or from an Ara- 
maic Targum, or from the use of an earlier form of a LXX text. 
It may be noticed that St. Paul’s quotations sometimes agree with 
late MSS. of the LXX as against the great uncials (cf. iii. 4, 15 ff.). 
As to the further question whether he cites from memory or by 
reference, it may be safely said that the majority of the quotations 
are from memory; for many of them are somewhat inexact, and 
those which are correct are for the most part short and from well- 
known books. There is a very marked distinction between these 
and the long literary quotations of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 


THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 303 





In his formulae of quotation St. Paul adopts all the various 
forms which\seem to have been in use in the Rabbinical schools, 
and are found in_Rabbinical writings. Even his less usual expres- 
sions may be paralleled from them (cf. xi. 2). Another point of 
resemblance may be found in the series of passages which he 
strings together from different books (cf. iii. 10) after the manner 
of a Rabbinical discourse. St. Paul was in fact educated as a Rabbi 
in Rabbinical schools and consequently his method of using the 
O.T. is such as might have been learnt in these schools. 

But how far is his interpretation Rabbinical? It is not quite 
easy to answer this question directly. It is perhaps better to point 
out first of all some characteristics which it possesses. 

In the first place it is quite clearly not ‘historical’ in the modern 
sense of the word. The passages are quoted without regard to 
their context or to the circumstances under which they were written. 
The most striking instances of this are those cases in which the 
words of the O. T. are used in an exactly opposite sense to that 
which they originally possessed. For instance in ix. 25, 26 words 
used in the O. T. of the ten tribes are used of the Gentiles, in x. 6-8 
words used of the Law are applied to the Gospel as against the 
Law. On the other hand Rabbinical interpretations in the sense 
in which they have become proverbial are very rare. St. Paul 
almost invariably takes the literal and direct meaning of the words 
(although without regard to their context), he does not allegorize 
or play upon their meaning, or find hidden and mysterious prin- 
ciples. ‘There are some obvious exceptions, such as Gal. iv. 22 ff., 
but for the most part St. Paul’s interpretation is not allegorical, 
nor in this sense of the term Rabbinical. 

Speaking broadly, St. Paul’s use of the O. T. may be described 
as literal, and we may distinguish three classes of texts. There 
are firstly those, and they are the largest number, in which the 
texts are used in a sense corresponding to their O. T. meaning. 
All texts quoted in favour of moral principles, or spiritual ideas, or 
the methods of Divine government may be grouped under this head. 
The argument in ix. 20, 21 is correctly deduced from O. T. prin- 
ciples; the quotation in ix. 17 is not quite so exactly correct, but 
the principle evolved is thoroughly in accordance with O. T. ideas. 
So again the method of Divine Election is deduced correctly from 
the instances quoted in ix. 6-13. Controversially these arguments 
were quite sound; actually they represent the principles and ideas 
of the O. T. 

A second class of passages consists of those in which, without 
definitely citing the O. T., the Apostle uses its language in order 
to express adequately and impressively the ideas he has to convey. 
A typical instance is that in x. 18, where the words of the Psalm 
are used in quite a different sense from that which they have in 


304 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [tx-xt. 


the original, and without any definite formula of citation. So in 
x. 6-8 (see the note) the O. T. language is used rather than a text 
from it cited. The same is true in a number of other passages 
where, as the text of Westcott and Hort exhibits clearly, ideas 
borrowed from the O.T. are expressed in language which is 
borrowed, but without any definite sign of quotation. That this is 
the natural and normal use of a religious book must clearly be 
recognized. ‘For [the writers of the N.T. the Scripture], was 
the one thesaurus of truth. They had almost no other books. 
The words of the O.T. had become a part of their mental furni- 
ture, and they used them to a certain extent with the freedom with 
which they used their own ideas’ (Toy, Quotations, &c. p. xx). It 
is a use which is constantly being made of the Bible at the present 
day, and when we attempt to analyze the exact force it is intended 
to convey, it is neither easy nor desirable to be precise. Between 
the purely rhetorical use on the one side and the logical proof on 
the other there are infinite gradations of ideas, and it is never quite 
possible to say how far in any definite passage the use is purely 
rhetorical and how far it is intended to suggest a definite argument. 

But there is a third class of instances in which the words are 
used in a sense which the original context will not bear, and yet the 
object is to give a logical proof. This happens mainly in a certain 
class of passages; in those in which the Law is used to condemn 
the Law, in those in which passages not Messianic are used with 
a Messianic bearing, and in those (a class connected with the last) 
in which passages are applied to the calling of the Gentiles which 
do not refer to that event in the original. Here controversially the 
method is justified. Some of the passages used Messianically by the 
Christians had probably been so used by the Rabbis before them. 
In all cases the methods they adopted were those of their contempo- 
raries, however incorrect they may have been. But what of the 
method in relation to our own times? Are we justified in using it? 
The answer to that must be sought in a comparison of their teaching 
with that of the Rabbis. We have said that controversially it was 
justified. ‘The method was the same as, and as good as, that of 
their own time; but it was no better. As far as method goes the 
Rabbis were equally justified in their conclusions. There is in 
fact no standard of right and wrong, when once it is permitted to 
take words in a sense which their original context will not bear. 
Anything can be proved from anything. 

Where then does the superiority of the N.T. writers lie? In 
their correct interpretation of the spirit of the O.T. ‘As ex- 
pounders of religion, they belong to the whole world and to all 
time ; as logicians, they belong to the first century. The essence 
of their writing is the Divine spirit of love and righteousness that 
filled their souls, the outer shell is the intellectual form in which 


IX-XI.] THE UNBELIEF OF ISRAEL 305 


the spirit found expression in words. Their comprehension of the 
deeper spirit of the O. T. thought is one thing: the logical method 
by which they sought formally to extend it is quite another’ (Toy, 
Quotations, §¢. p. xxi). This is just one of those points in which 
we must trace the superiority of the N. T. writers to its root and 
take from them that, and not their faulty exegesis. 

An illustration may be drawn from Church History. The Church 
inherited equally from the Jewish schools, the Greek Philosophers, 
and the N. T. writers an unhistorical method of interpretation; and 
in the Arian controversy (to take an example) it constantly makes 
use of this method. We are learning to realize more and more 
how much of our modern theology is based on the writings of 
St. Athanasius; but that does not impose upon us the necessity of 
adopting his exegesis. If the methods that he applies to the O. T. 
are to be admitted it is almost as easy to deduce Arianism from 
it. Athanasius did not triumph because of those exegetical methods, 
but because he rightly interpreted (and men felt that he had rightly 
interpreted) the spirit of the N.T. His creed, his religious insight, 
to a certain extent his philosophy, we accept: but not his exegetical 
methods. 

So with the O.T. St. Paul triumphed, and the Christian Church 
triumphed, over Judaism, because they both rightly interpreted the 
spirit of the O.T. We must accept that interpretation, although we 
shall find that we arrive at it on other grounds. This may be 
illustrated in two main points. 

It is the paradox of ch. x that it condemns the Law out of the 
Law; that it convicts the Jews by applying to them passages, which 
in the original accuse them of breaking the Law, in order to 
condemn them for keeping it. But the paradox is only apparent. 
Running through the O.T., in the books of the Law as well as in 
those of the Prophets, is the prophetic spirit, always bringing out 
the spiritual truths and lessons concealed in or guarded by the Law 
in opposition to the formal adherence to its precepts. This spirit 
the Gospel inherits. ‘The Gospel itself is a reawakening of the 
spirit of prophecy. There are many points in which the teaching 
of St. Paul bears a striking resemblance to that of the old Prophets. 
It is not by chance that so many quotations from them occur in 
his writings. Separated from Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and 
Isaiah by an interval of about 800 years, he felt a kind of sympathy 
with them; they expressed his inmost feelings; like them he was 
at war with the evil of the world around. When they spoke of 
forgiveness of sins, of non-imputation of sins, of a sudden turning 
to God, what did this mean but righteousness by faith? When 
they said, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice,’ here also was 
imaged the great truth, that salvation was not of the Law... Like 
the elder Prophets, he came not “to build up a temple made with 

x 


306 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ix-x1L 


hands,” but to teach a moral truth: like them he went forth alone, 
and not in connexion with the church at Jerusalem: like them he 
was looking for and hastening to the day of the Lord’ (Jowett). 
This represents the truth, as the historical study of the O. T. will 
prove ; or rather one side of the truth. The Gospel is not merely 
the reawakening of the spirit of prophecy; it is also the fulfilment 
of the spiritual teaching of Law. It was necessary for a later 
writer—the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews—when contro- 
versy was less bitter to bring this out more fully. Christ not only 
revived all the teaching of the Prophets, righteousness, mercy, 
peace; He also exhibited by His death the teaching of the Law, 
the heinousness of sin, the duty of sacrifice, the spiritual union of 
God and man. 

The same lines of argument will justify the Messianic use of the 
O.T. If we study it historically the reality of the Messianic 
interpretation remains just as clear as it was to St. Paul. Alle- 
gorical and incorrect exegesis could never create an idea. They 
only illustrate one which has been suggested in other ways, The 
Messianic interpretation, and with it the further idea of the uni- 
versality of the Messianic kingdom, arose because they are contained 
in the O. T. Any incorrectness of exegesis that there may be lies 
not in the ideas themselves but in finding them in passages which 
have probably a different meaning. We are not bound, and it 
would be wrong to bind ourselves, by the incorrect exegesis of 
particular passages ; but the reality and truth of the Messianic idea 
and the universal character of the Messianic kingdom, as prophesied 
in the O.T. and fulfilled in the N.T., remain one of the most 
real and impressive facts in religious history. Historical criticism 
does not disprove this; it only places it on a stronger foundation 
and enables us to trace the origin and growth of the idea more 
accurately (cf. Sanday, Bampton Leclures, pp. 404, 405). 

The value of St. Paul’s exegesis therefore lies not in his true 
interpretation of individual passages, but in his insight into the 
spiritual meaning of the O.T.; we need not use his methods, but 
the books of the Bible will have little value for us if we are not able 
to see in them the spiritual teaching which he saw. In the cause 
of truth, as a guide to right religious ideas, as a fatal enemy to 
many a false and erroneous and harmful doctrine, historical criticism 
and interpretation are of immense value; but if they be divorced 
from a spiritual insight, such as can be learnt only by the spiritual 
teaching of the N.T., which interprets the O.T. from the stand- 
point of its highest and truest fulfilment, they will become as barren 
and unproductive as the strangest conceits of the Rabbis or the 
most unreal fancies of the Schoolmen. 

[See, besides other works: Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, in his 
edition of the Romans; Toy, Quotations in the New Testament, 


XI. 1-5.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 309 


New York, 1884; Kautzsch, De Veteris Testament? locis a Paulo 
Apostolo allegatis, Lipsiae, 1869; Clemen (Dr. August), Ueber den 
Gebrauch des Alien Testaments im Neuen Testamente, und speciell in 
den Reden Jesu (Einladungsschrift, &c., Leipzig, 1891); Turpie 
(eee) McCalman), Zhe Old Testament in the New, London, 
1868. 


THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT COMPLETE. 


XI. 1-10. [srael then has refused to accept the salvation 
offered it; ts it therefore rejected? No. At any rate the 
rejection 1s not complete. Now as always in the history of 
Israel, although the mass of the people may be condemned to 
disbelief, there ts a remnant that shall be saved. 


1The conclusion of the preceding argument is this. It is through 
their own fault that Israel has rejected a salvation which was fully 
and freely offered. Now what does this imply? Does it mean 
that God has rejected His chosen people? Heaven forbid that 
I should say this! I who like them am an Israelite, an Israelite 
by birth and not a proselyte, a lineal descendant of Abraham, 
a member of the tribe that with Judah formed the restored Israel 
after the exile. *No, God has not rejected His people. He 
chose them for His own before all time and nothing can make 
Him change His purpose. If you say He has rejected them, 
it only shows that you have not clearly grasped the teaching of 
Scripture concerning the Remnant. Elijah on Mt. Horeb brought 
just such an accusation against his countrymen. * He complained 
that they had forsaken the covenant, that they had overthrown 
God’s altars, that they had slain His Prophets; just as the Jews 
at the present day have slain the Messiah and persecuted His 
messengers. Elijah only was left, and his life they sought. The 
whole people, God’s chosen people, had been rejected. *So he 
thought; but the Divine response came to him, that there were seven 
thousand men left in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. 
There was a kernel of the nation that remained loyal. ° Exactly 
the same circumstances exist now as then, Now as then the mass 
of the people are uniaithful, but there is a remnant of loyal ad- 

xa 


308 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 5-1o. 


herents to the Divine message :—a remnant, be it remembered, 
chosen by God by an act of free favour: ‘that is to say those 
whom God has in His good pleasure selected for that position, who 
have in no way earned it by any works they have done, or any 
merit of their own. If that were possible Grace would lose all its 
meaning: there would be no occasion for God to show free favour 
to mankind. 

"It is necessary then at any rate to modify the broad statement 
that has been made. Israel, it is true, has failed to obtain the 
righteousness which it sought; but, although this is true of the 
nation as a whole, there is a Remnant of which it is not true. 
Those whom God selected have attained it. But what of the rest? 
Their hearts have been hardened. Here again we find the same 
conditions prevailing throughout Israel’s history. Isaiah declared 
(xxix. 10; vi. 9, 10) "how God had thrown the people into a state 
of spiritual torpor. He had given them eyes which could not see, 
and ears which could not hear. All through their history the mass 
of the people has been destitute of spiritual insight. * And again 
in the book of Psalms, David (Ixix. 23, 24) declares the Divine 
wrath against the unfaithful of the nation: ‘ May their table be their 
snare.’ It is just their position as God’s chosen people, it is the Law 
and the Scriptures, which are their boast, that are to be the cause of 
their ruin. * They are to be punished by being allowed to cleave 
fast to that to which they have perversely adhered. *°‘ Let their eyes 
be blinded, so that they cannot see light when it shines upon them: 
let their back be ever bent under the burden to which they have 
so obstinately clung.’ This was God’s judgement then on Israel 
for their faithlessness, and it is God’s judgement on them now. 

1-36. St. Paul has now shown (1) (ix. 6-29) that God was 
perfectly free, whether as regards promise or His right as Creator, to 
reject Israel; (2) (ix. 30—-x. 21) that Israel on their side by neglecting 
the Divine method of salvation offered them have deserved this 
rejection. He now comes to the original question from which he 
started, but which he never expressed, and asks, Has God, as might 
be thought from the drift of the argument so far, really cast away 
His people? To this he gives a negative answer, which he proceeds 
to justify by showing (1) that this rejection is only partial (xi. 1-10), 
(2) only temporary (xi. 11-25), and (3) that in all this Divine action 
there has been a purpose deeper and wiser than man can altogether 
understand (xi. 26-36). 


XI. 1, 2.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 309 


1. Xéyw of. This somewhat emphatic phrase occurring here 
and in ver. rr seems to mark a stage in the argument, the ody as 
so often summing up the result so far arrived at. The change of 
particle shows that we have not here a third question parallel to 
the adda Aéeyw of x. 18, 19. 

ph amdcato 6 Geds tév adv atdrod; ‘Is it possible that God has 
cast away His people?’ The form of the question implies neces- 
sarily a negative answer and suggests an argument against it. (1) 
By the juxtaposition of 6 eds and rév Aady airod. Israel is God’s 
people and so He cannot reject them. sa populi eius apfellatio 
rationem negandt continet. Beng. (2) By the use made of the 
language of the O.T. Three times in the O. T. (1 Sam. xii. 22; 
Ps, xciii [xciv]. 14; xciv [xcv]. 4) the promise ov« dracerat Kipuos 
tov Aadvy av’tod occurs. By using words which must be so well 
known St. Paul reminds his readers of the promise, and thus again 
implies an answer to the question. 

This very clear instance of the merely literary use of the language 
of the O.T. makes it more probable that St. Paul should have 
adopted a similar method elsewhere, as in x. 6 ff., 18. 

py yevorto. St. Paul repudiates the thought with horror. All 
his feelings as an Israelite make it disloyal in him to hold it. 

kal yap x.7.4. These words have been taken in two ways. (1) 
As a proof of the incorrectness of the suggestion. St. Paul was an 
Israelite, and he had been saved; therefore the people as a whole 
could not have been rejected. So the majority of commentators 
(Go. Va. Oltr. Weiss). But the answer to the question does not 
occur until St. Paul gives it in a solemn form at the beginning of 
the next verse; he would not therefore have previously given 
a reason for its incorrectness. Moreover it would be inconsistent 
with St. Paul’s tact and character to put himself forward so promi- 
nently. 

(2) It is therefore better to take it as giving ‘the motive for his 
deprecation, not a proof of his denial’ (Mey. Gif. Lips.). Through- 
out this passage, St. Paul partly influenced by the reality of his 
own sympathy, partly by a desire to put his argument in a form as 
little offensive as possible, has more than once emphasized his own 
kinship with Israel (ix. 1-3; x. 1). Here for the first time, just 
when he is going to disprove it, he makes the statement which has 
really been the subject of the two previous passages, and at once, 
in order if possible to disarm criticism, reminds his readers that he 
is an Israelite, and that therefore to him, as much as to them, the 
supposition seems almost blasphemous. 

"lopandtmms x.t.A. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5. 

év mpotyvw, which is added by Lachmann after 7dv Aady adrod, has the 
support of A D Chrys. and other authorities, but clearly came in from ver. 2. 


2. ox dndoato. St. Paul gives expressly and formally a negative 


310 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (x1. 2 


answer to the question he has just asked, adding emphasis by 
repeating the very words he has used. 

év mpo¢yvw. The addition of these words gives a reason for the 
emphatic denial of which they form a part. Israel was the race 
which God in His Divine foreknowledge had elected and chosen, 
and therefore He could not cast it off. The reference in this 
chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as a whole, and 
therefore the words cannot have a limiting sense (Orig. Chrys. 
Aug.), ‘that people whom He foreknew,’ i.e. those of His people 
whom He foreknew; nor again can they possibly refer to the 
spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to 
Aads different from that in ver.1. The word mpo¢éyvw may be taken, 
(1) as used in the Hebrew sense, to mean ‘whom He has known or 
chosen beforehand.’ So ywaoxew in the LXX. Amos iii. 2 tpas 
éyvav ex macav tav pudray tis yjs. And in St. Paul 1 Cor. viii. 3 
dé tis ayaa tov Oedv, otros fyvworat bn’ airov. Gal. iv. g viv dé 
yrortes Gedy, waddov 8€ yrooOerres id Ccod. 2 Tim. ii. 19 €yv@ Kupws 
tous évtas avrod. Although there is no evidence for this use of 
mpoytvaoxew it represents probably the idea which St. Paul had in 
his mind (see on viii. 29). (2) But an alternative interpretation 
taking the word in its natural meaning of foreknowledge, must not 
be lost sight of, ‘that people of whose history and future destiny 
God had full foreknowledge.’ This seems to be the meaning 
with which the word is generally used (Wisd. vi. 13; viii. 8; xviii. 6; 
Just. Mart. Aol. i. 28; Dzal. 42. p. 261 B.); so too mpdyroors is used 
definitely and almost technically of the Divine foreknowledge (Acts 
ii. 23); and in this chapter St. Paul ends with vindicating the 
Divine wisdom which had prepared for Israel and the world 
a destiny which exceeds human comprehension. 

% odk olSare: cf. ii. 4; vi. 3; vii. 1; ix. 21. ‘You must admit 
this or be ignorant of what the Scripture says.’ The point of the 
quotation lies not in the words which immediately follow, but in the 
contrast between the two passages; a contrast which represented 
the distinction between the apparent and the real situation at the 
time when the Apostle wrote. 

év "HXia: ‘in the section of Scripture which narrates the story 
of Elijah.” The O. T. Scriptures were divided into paragraphs to 
which were given titles derived from their subject-matter; and these 
came to be very commonly used in quotations as references. Many 
instances are quoted from the Talmud and from Hebrew commen- 
tators: Berachoth, fol. 2. col. 1, fol. 4. col. 2 1d guod scriptum est apud 
Michéel, referring to Is. vi.6. So Zaanigoth, ii.1; Adoth de-Rabbi 
Nathan, c.9; Shir hashirtm rabba i. 6, where a phrase similar 
to that used here, ‘In Elijah,’ occurs, and the same passage is 
quoted, ‘I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of Hosts.’ 
So also Philo, De Agricultura, p. 203 (i. 317 Mang.) Ayes yap é» raie 


XI. 2-4.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 311 


dpais, referring to Gen. iii. 15. The phrase én ris Barov Mark 
xii. 26; Luke xx. 37; Clem. Hom. xvi. 14; Apost. Const. v. 20, is 
often explained in a similar manner, but very probably incorrectly, 
the emi being perhaps purely local. The usage exactly corresponds 
to the method used in quoting the Homeric poems. As the Rabbis 
divided the O. T. into sections so the Rhapsodists divided Homer, 
and these sections were quoted by their subjects, ¢v”Exropos dvatpeoet, 
é vexvia. (See Fri. Delitzsch ad doc., Surenhiusius, BiSdos xuraAXayjjs, 
P- 31.) 

évruyxdvet: ‘he accuses Israel before God.’ The verb ¢- 
Teyxdvew means, (1) ‘to meet with,’ (2) ‘to meet with for the 
purposes of conversation,’ ‘have an interview with,’ Acts xxv. 24; 
hence (3) ‘to converse with,’ ‘plead with,’ Wisdom viii. 21, either 
on behalf of some one (imép twos) Rom. viii. 27, 34; Heb. vii. 25; 
or against some one (xard twos), and so (4) definitely ‘to accuse’ as 
here and 1 Macc. xi. 25 kai everdyxavov kar aitod twes dvopos Tov ex 
tov cOvous: Vili. 32; xX. 61, 63. ' 

The TR. adds Aéyov at the end of this verse with N*L al. pler., it is 
omitted by NSABCDEFGP min. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh., and most 
Fathers. 

8. Kupte, tods mpopytas «.7.A. The two quotations come from 
1 Kings xix. 10, 14, 18; the first being repeated twice. Elijah 
has fled to Mt. Horeb from Jezebel, and accuses his countrymen 
before God of complete apostasy; he alone is faithful. God 
answers that even although the nation as a whole has deserted 
Him, yet there is a faithful remnant, 7,000 men who have not 
bowed the knee to Baal. There is an analogy, St. Paul argues, 
between this situation and that of his own day. The spiritual 
condition is the same. The nation as a whole has rejected God’s 
message, now as then; but now as then also there is a faithful 
remnant left, and if that be so God cannot be said to have cast 
away His people. 

The quotation is somewhat shortened from the LXX, and the order of the 
clauses is inverted, perhaps to put in a prominent position the words rots 
mpopntas gov améxTevay to which there was most analogy during St. Paul’s 
time (cf. Acts vii. 52; 1 Thess. ii. 14). The «ai between the clauses of the 
TR. is read by DEL and later MSS. Justin Martyr, Dza/. 39. p. 257 D, 
quotes the words as in St. Paul and not as in the LXX: Kai ydp ‘Hiias 
mept Uu@y mpos Tov Ocdv evtuvyxavwy oTws Ayer" KUpie, TOUS mpopnTas cou 
dméxrevay Kail TA OvciacTnpia cov KatécKaay Kaya wmedelpOny povos kat 
Gnrovor tiv yuxnv pov. Kal aGroxpivera: ait, “Eve eici por émtamoxirror 
avipes, of ov« Exapay yivu TH Baad, 

4. 6 xpnpatiopds: ‘the oracle.’ An unusual sense for the 
word, which occurs here only in the N. T., but is found in 2 Macc. 
ii. 4; Clem. Rom. xvii. 5; and occasionally elsewhere. The verb 
xpnpari¢ey meant (1) originally ‘to transact business’; then (2) ‘to 
consult,’ ‘deliberate’; hence (3) ‘to give audience,’ ‘answer after 


312 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 4, 6. 


deliberation’; and so finally (4) of an oracle ‘to give a response,’ 
taking the place of the older xpdw; and so it is used in the N. T. 
of the Divine warning Mat. ii. 12, 22 xpnyarioOévres car’ dvap: Luke 
ii. 26; Acts x. 22; Heb. viii. 5; xi. 7: cf. Jos. An#. V.i.14; Xi. 
3; XI. iii. 4. From-this usage of the verb xpnyarifo was derived 
xpnpariouds, as the more usual xpyopds from xpdw. See also p. 173. 

7 Baad: substituted by St. Paul (as also by Justin Martyr, doc. 
ett.) for the LXX 76 Baad, according to a usage common in other 
passages in the Greek Version. 


The word Baal, which means ‘Lord,’ appears to have been originally 
used as one of the names of the God of Israel, and as such became a part of 
many Jewish names, as for example Jerubbaal (Jud. vi. 32; vii. 1), Eshbaal 
(1 Chron. ix. 39), Meribbaal (1 Chron. ix. 40), &c. But gradually the 
special association of the name with the idolatrous worship of the Phoenician 
god caused the use of it to be forbidden. Hosea ii. 16, 17 ‘and it shall be 
at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me 
no more Baali. For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her 
mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.’ Owing to this 
motive a tendency arose to obliterate the name of Baal from the Scriptures: 
just as owing to a feeling of reverence ‘ Elohim’ was substituted for ‘ Jehovah’ 
in the second and third books of the Psalms. This usage took the form of 
substituting Bosheth, ‘abomination,’ for Baal. So Eshbaal (1 Chr. viii. 33, 
ix. 39) became Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8; iii. 8); Meribbaal (1 Chr. ix. 40) 
Mephibosheth (2 Sam. ix. 6 ff.); Jerubbaal Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. xi. 21). 
See also Hosea ix. 10; Jer. iii. 24; xi. 13. Similarly in the LXX aicxdvy 
represents in one passage Baal of the Hebrew text, 3. Kings xviii. 19, 25. 
But it seems to have been more usual to substitute aicxvvy in reading for the 
written Baad, and as a sign of this Qev¢ the feminine article was written; 
just as the name Jehovah was written with the pointing of Adonai. This 
usage is most common in Jeremiah, but occurs also in the books of Kings, 
Chronicles, and other Prophets. It appears not to occur in the Pentateuch. 
The plural tais occurs 2 Chr. xxiv. 7; xxxiii. 3. This, the only satisfactory 
explanation of the feminine article with the masculine name, is given by 
Dillmann, Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wessenschaft 2w Berlin, 1881, 
p- 6o1 ff. and has superseded all others. 

The LXX version is again shortened in the quotation, and for cataAcipa 
is substituted saréA:mov éxav7@, which is an alternative and perhaps more 
exact translation of the Hebrew, 


5. ottws odv. The application of the preceding instance to the 
circumstances of the Apostle’s own time. The facts were the 
same. St. Paul would assume that his readers, some of whom 
were Jewish Christians, and all of whom were aware of the exist- 
ence of such a class, would recognize this. And if this were so 
the same deduction might be made. As then the Jewish people 
were not rejected, because the remnant was saved; so now there 
is a remnant, and this implies that God has not cast away His 
people as such. 

Aeippa (on the orthography ef. WH. ii. App. p. 154, who read 
Aiuua), ‘a remnant.’ The word does not occur elsewhere in the 
N.T., and in the O. T. only twice, and then not in the technical 
sense of the ‘remnant.’ The usual word for that is ro xarakapéer. 


XI. 5-7.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 313 


mar éxXoyhy xdpttos. Predicate with yéyover. ‘There has come 
to be through the principle of selection which is dependent on the 
Divine grace or favour.’ This addition to the thought, which is 
further explained in ver. 6, reminds the reader of the result of the 
previous discussion: that ‘election’ on which the Jews had always 
laid so much stress had operated, but it was a selection on the 
part of God of those to whom He willed to give His grace, and 
not an election of those who had earned it by their works. 

6. ei Sé xdpite w.t.A, A further explanation of the principles of 
election. If the election had been on the basis of works, then the 
Jews might have demanded that God’s promise could only be ful- 
filled if all who had earned it had received it: St. Paul, by reminding 
them of the principles of election already laid down, implies that 
the promise is fulfilled if the remnant is saved. God's people 
are those whom He has chosen ; it is not that the Jews are chosen 
because they are His people. 

émet 7) xdpts ovKér yiverat xdpts: ‘this follows from the very 
meaning of the idea of grace.’ Gratia nis? gratis sit gratia non est. 
St. Augustine. 

The TR. after yivera: ydpis adds el 82 Ef Epyov, oveérs Ett yapis* evel TS 
Epyov ovxer: éativ épyov with N°(B)L and later MSS., Syrr., Chrys. and Thdrt. 
(in the text, but they do not refer to the words in their commentary). 
Breads ef 5 éf Epyov, overs yapiss evel 7d Epyov ovxéT: éoti xaps. The 
clause is omitted by N* AC DEFGP, Vulg. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Arm., 
Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst. Patr.-datt. There need be no doubt that it is 
a gloss, nor is the authority of B of any weight in support of a Western 
addition such as this against such preponderating authority. This is con- 
sidered by WH. to be the solitary or almost the solitary case in which B 
possibly has a Syrian reading (Introd. ii. 150). 


9. ti otv; This verse sums up the result of the discussion in 
wy. z—6. ‘What then is the result? In what way can we modify 
the harsh statement made in ver. 1? It is indeed still true that 
Israel as a nation has failed to obtain what is its aim, namely 
righteousness: but at the same time there is one portion of it, the 
elect, who have attained it.’ 

H S€ Exdoyy: i.e. of ekAexroi. The abstract for the concrete 
suggests the reason for their success by laying stress on the idea 
rather than on the individuals. 

ot S€ Aottot emwpdéOncav: ‘while the elect have attained what 
they sought, those who have failed to attain it have been hardened.’ 
They have not failed because they have been hardened, but they 
have been hardened because they have failed; cf. i. 24 ff., where 
sin is represented as God’s punishment inflicted on man for their 
rebellion. Here St. Paul does not definitely say by whom, for 
that is not the point it interests him to discuss at present: he has 
represented the condition of Israel both as the result of God’s 
action (ch. ix) and of their own (ch. x). Here as in xarnprisucva 


314 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [X1. 7, 8. 


ix. 22, he uses the colourless passive without laying stress on the 
cause: the quotation in ver. 8 represents God as the author, 
érragay in ver. 11 suggests that they are free agents. 


The verb twpéw (derived from m@pos a callus or stone formed in the 
bladder) is a medical term used in Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone or 
hard substance growing when bones are fractured, or of a stone forming in 
the bladder. Hence metaphorically it is used in the N. T., and apparently 
there only of the heart becoming hardened or callous: so Mark vi. 52; 
Jo. xii. 40; Rom. xi. 7; 2 Cor. ili. 14: while the noun mmpwots occurs in 
the same sense, Mark iii. 5; Rom. xi. 25; Eph. iv. 18. The idea is in all 
these places the same, that a covering has grown over the heart, making 
men incapable of receiving any new teaching however good, and making 
them oblivious of the wrong they are doing. In Job xvii. 7 (memwpovra 
yap and dpyis of d6pPaApot pov) the word is used of blindness, but again only 
of moral blindness ; anger has caused as it were a covering to grow over 
the eyes. “There is therefore no need to take the word to mean ‘blind,’ as 
do the grammarians (Suidas, mwpdés, 6 tupAds: memwpwrat, TeTUpAarrat « 
Hesychius, renwpwyévor, TerupAwuevor) and the Latin Versions (excaecats, 
ebcaecati), It is possible that this translation arose from a confusion with 
mnpos (see on katavigews below) which was perhaps occasionally used of 
blindness (see Prof. Armitage Robinson in Academy, 1892, p. 305), although 
probably then as a specialized usage for the more general ‘maimed.’ Al- 
though the form m7péw occurs in some MSS. of the N. T., yet the evidence 
against it is in every case absolutely conclusive, as it is also in the O. T. in 
the one passage where the word occurs. 


8. xa0as yéypamrat. St. Paul supports and explains his last 
statement of 6€ Acoli émwpotncay by quotations from the O. T. 
The first which in form resembles Deut. xxix. 4, modified by 
Is. xxix. 10; vi. 9, 10, describes the spiritual dulness or torpor of 
which the prophet accuses the Israelites. This he says had been 
given them by God as a punishment for their faithlessness. These 
words will equally well apply to the spiritual condition of the 
Apostle’s own time, showing that it is not inconsistent with the 
position of Israel as God’s people, and suggesting a general law of 
God’s dealing with them. 

The following extracts, in which the words that St. Paul has made« 
use of are printed in spaced type, will give the source of the quotation. 
Deut. xxix. 4 kal otk €d5mxKev Kips 6 Geds dpiv xapdiay cldévar «at 
dpOadrpots BAémery wal Ora dxoverv Ews THS Hucpas tavrns. Is 
xxix. 10 S71 wemd7TiKey bas Kupios mvevpartt katavvfews: cf. Is. vi. 9, TO 
axon dkoUGETE kai ov 41) cuvATe Kal Brcmovres BAEWeTeE Kat ov pi) TdyTE. 
... kat elna “Ews méte, Kupie; While the form resembles the words in 
Deut., the historical situation and meaning of the quotation are represented 
by the passages in Isaiah to which St. Paul is clearly referring. 
mvedpa Katavugews: ‘a spirit of torpor,’ a state of dull insensi- 

bility to everything spiritual, such as would be produced by drunken- 
ness, or stupor. Is. xxix. ro (RV.) ‘For the Lord hath poured 
out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, 
the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.’ 

The word «xaravufis is derived from xataviccoua. The simple verb 
yvoow is used to mean to ‘prick’ or ‘strike’ or ‘dint’ The compound 


XI. 8-10.] | THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 315 


verb would mean, (1) to ‘strike’ or ‘prick violently,’ and hence (2) to 
‘stun’; no instance is quoted of it in its primary sense, but it is common 
(3) especially in the LXX of strong emotions, of the prickings of lust Susan. 
10 (Theod.); of strong grief Gen. xxxiv. 7; Ecclus. xiv. 1; and so Acts ii. 37 
kaTevirynoay Th kapdia of being strongly moved by speaking. Then (4) it is 
used of the stunning effect of such emotion which results in speechlessness : 
Is. vi. 5 & TaAas éy@ bre karavévvypar: Dan. x. 15 ébwxa 7d mpdcwmdy wou 
ént tiv yiv «ai Karevtyny, and so the general idea of torpor would be 
derived. The noun «aravvgis appears to occur only twice, Is. xxix. Io 
mvedya katavigews, Ps, lix [lx]. 4 oivoy karavigews. In the former case it 
clearly means ‘torpor’ or ‘deep sleep,’ as both the context and the Hebrew 
show, in the latter case probably so. It may be noticed that this definite 
meaning of ‘torpor’ or ‘deep sleep’ which is found in the noun cannot be 
exactly paralleled in the verb; and it may be suggested that a certain con- 
fusion existed with the verb vuvcra(w, which means ‘to nod in sleep,’ ‘be 
drowsy,’ just as the meaning of ép:@cia was influenced by its resemblance 
to gps (cf ii. 8). On the word generally see Fri. ii. p. 558 ff. 

€ws Tis onpepoy qpepas: cf. Acts vii. 51 ‘Ye stiffnmecked and 
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy 
Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye.’ St. Stephen’s speech 
illustrates more in detail the logical assumptions which underlie 
St. Paul’s quotations. The chosen people have from the beginning 
shown the same obstinate adherence to their own views and 
a power of resisting the Holy Ghost; and God has throughout 
punished them for their obstinacy by giving them over to spiritual 
blindness. 

9. wat AaBid Adyer x.t.A.: quoted from the LXX of Ps. lxviii 
[Ixix]. 23, 24 yermOnta 7 tTpanela aitay évamoy aitav cis wayida, xai eis 
ayrarddoow Kat oxavdadov* cxoticbyrecav x.t.\. (which is ascribed in 
the title to David) with reminiscences of Ps. xxxiv [xxxv]. 8, and 
xxvii [xxviii]. 4. The Psalmist is represented as declaring the 
Divine wrath against those who have made themselves enemies of 
the Divine will. Those who in his days were the enemies of the 
spiritual life of the people are represented in the Apostle’s days by 
the Jews who have shut their ears to the Gospel message. 

q tpaweLa atdrav: ‘their feast’ The image is that of men 
feasting in careless security, and overtaken by their enemies, owing 
to the very prosperity which ought to be their strength. So to the 
Jews that Law and those Scriptures wherein they trusted are to 
become the very cause of their fall and the snare or hunting-net in 
which they are caught. 

oxdvdahov: ‘that over which they fall,’ ‘a cause of their destruc- 
tion.” 

évramdSopa: Ps, xxvii [xxviii]. 4. ‘A requital,’ ‘recompense.’ 
The Jews are to be punished for their want of spiritual insight by 
being given over to blind trust in their own law; in fact being 
given up entirely to their own wishes. 

10. cxotic8ytwcav K.t.. ‘May their eyes become blind, so that 
they have no insight, and their backs bent like men who are continu- 


316 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [&1. 1-10. 


ally groping about in the dark!’ They are to be like those described 
by Plato as fast bound in the cave: even if they are brought to the 
light they will only be blinded by it, and will be unable to see. 
The judgement upon them is that they are to be ever bent down 
with the weight of the burden which they have wilfully taken on 
their backs. 


It may be worth noticing that Lipsius, who does not elsewhere accept the 
theory of interpolations in the text, suggests that vv. 9, 10 area gloss added 
by some reader in the margin after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Holsten, Z.f. 
w. T. 1872, p. 4553; Michelsen, 7%. 7. 1887, p. 163; Protestanten-bibel, 
1872, p. 589; Z. 7. ii. 154). It is suggested that d:anav7ds is inconsistent 
with ver. 11 ff. But it has not been noticed that in ver. 11 we have a change 
of metaphor, émra:cav, which would be singularly out of place if it came 
immediately after ver. 8. As it is, this word is suggested and accounte: 
for by the metaphors employed in the quotation introduced in ver. 9. If 
we omit vv. 9, 10 we must also omit ver. 11. There is throughout the 
whole Epistle a continuous succession of thought running from verse to 
verse which makes any theory of interpolation impossible. (See Intro- 
duction, § 9.) 


The Doctrine of the Remnant. 


The idea of the ‘Remnant’ is one of the most typical and 
significant in the prophetic portions of the O. T. We meet it 
first apparently in the prophetic narrative which forms the basis of 
the account of Elijah in the book of Kings, the passage which 
St. Paul is quoting. Here a new idea is introduced into Israel's 
history, and it is introduced in one of the most solemn and im- 
pressive narratives of that history. The Prophet is taken into the 
desert to commune with God; he is taken to Sinai, the mountain of 
God, which played such a large part in the traditions of His people, 
and he receives the Divine message in that form which has ever 
marked off this as unique amongst theophanies, the ‘still small 
voice,’ contrasted with the thunder, and the storm, and the 
earthquake. And the idea that was thus introduced marks a 
stage in the religious history of the world, for it was the first 
revelation of the idea of personal as opposed to national consecra- 
tion. Up to that time it was the nation as a whole that was 
bound to God, the nation as a whole for which sacrifices were 
offered, the nation as a whole for which kings had fought and 
judges legislated. But the nation as a whole had deserted Jehovah, 
and the Prophet records that it is the loyalty of the individual 
Israelites who had remained true to Him that must henceforth be 
reckoned. The nation will be chastised, but the remnant shall be 
saved, 

The idea is a new one, but it is one which we find continuously 
from this time onwards ; spiritualized with the more spiritual ideas 
of the later prophets. We find it in Amos (ix. 8-10), in Micah (ii 


XI. 1-10.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 319 
12, v. 3), in Zephaniah (iii. 12, 13), in Jeremiah (xxiii. 3), in Ezekiel 
(xiv. 14-20, 22), but most pointedly and markedly in Isaiah. The 
two great and prominent ideas of Isaiah’s prophecy are typified in 
the names given to his two sons,—the reality of the Divine ven- 
geance (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) and the salvation of the Remnant 
(Shear-Jashub) and, through the Holy and Righteous Remnant, of 
the theocratic nation itself (vii. 3; viii. 2, 18; ix. 12; x. 21, 24); 
and both these ideas are prominent in the narrative of the call 
(vi. 9-13) ‘ Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, 
but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their 
ears heavy, and shut their eyes... Then said I, Lord, how long? 
And He answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant and 
homes without men, and the land become utterly waste.’ But this 
is only one side. There is a true stock left. ‘Like the terebinth 
and the oak, whose stock remains when they are cut down and sends 
forth new saplings, so the holy seed remains as a living stock and 
a new and better Israel shall spring from the ruin of the ancient 
state’ (Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, p.234). This doctrine 
of a Remnant implied that it was the individual who was true to 
his God, and not the nation, that was the object of the Divine 
solicitude; that it was in this small body of individuals that the 
true life of the chosen nation dwelt, and that trom them would 
spring that internal reformation, which, coming as the result of the 
Divine chastisement, would produce a whole people, pure and 
undefiled, to be offered to God (Is. Ixv. 8, 9). 

The idea appealed with great force to the early Christians. I> 
appealed to St. Stephen, in whose speech one of the main currents 
of thought seems to be the marvellous analogy which runs through 
all the history of Israel. The mass of the people has ever been 
unfaithful ; it is the individual or the small body that has remained 
true to God in all the changes of Israel’s history, and these the 
people have always persecuted as they crucified the Messiah, 
And so St. Paul, musing over the sad problem of Israel’s unbelief, 
finds its explanation and justification in this consistent trait of the 
nation’s history. As in Elijah’s time, as in Isaiah’s time, so now the 
mass of the people have rejected the Divine call; but there always 
has been and still is the true Remnant, the Remnant whom God 
has selected, who have preserved the true life and ideal of the 
people and thus contain the elements of new and prolonged life. 

And this doctrine of the ‘Remnant’ is as true to human nature 
as it is to Israel’s history. No church or nation is saved ew masse, 
it is those members of it who are righteous. It is not the mass 
of the nation or church that has done its work, but the select 
few who have: preserved the consciousness of its high calling. 
It is by the selection of individuals, even in the nation that has 
been chosen, that God has worked equally in religion and in all 


318 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 11-14 


the different lines along which the path of human development has 
progressed. 

[On the Remnant see especially Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, 
in Romans ii. p. 290; and Robertson Smith, Zhe Prophets of 
Israel, pp. 106, 209, 234, 258. The references are collected in 
Oehler, Zheologie des alien Testaments, p. 809.] 


THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL NOT FINAL 


XI. 11-24. The Rejection of Israel is not complete, nor 
will it be final. Its result has been the extension of the 
Church to the Gentiles. The salvation of these will stir the 
Fews to jealousy ; they will return to the Kingdom, and this 
will mean the final consummation (vv. 10-15). 

Of all this the guarantee is the holiness of the stock from 
which Israel comes. God has grafted you Gentiles into that 
stock against the natural order; far more easily can He 
restore them to a position which by nature and descent is 
theirs (vv. 16-24). 


"The Rejection of Israel then is only partial. Yet still there 
is the great mass of the nation on whom God’s judgement has 
come: what of these? Is there no further hope for them? Is 
this stumbling of theirs such as will lead to a final and complete 
fall? By no means. It is only temporary, a working out of the 
Divine purpose. This purpose is partly fulfilled. It has resulted 
in the extension of the Messianic salvation to the Gentiles. It is 
partly in the future; that the inclusion of these in the Kingdom 
may rouse the Jews to emulation and bring them back to the place 
which should be theirs and from which so far they have been 
excluded. 7 And consider what this means. Even the transgres- 
sion of Israel has brought to the world a great wealth of spiritual 
blessings; their repulse has enriched the nations, how much greater 
then will be the result when the chosen people with their numbers 
completed have accepted the Messiah? "In these speculations 
about my countrymen, I am not disregarding my proper mission 
to you Gentiles, It is with you in my mind that I am speaking. 
I will put it more strongly. Ido all I can to glorify my ministry 
as Apostle to the Gentiles, ‘and this in hopes that I may succeed 


XI. 14-21] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 319 


in bringing salvation to some at any rate of my countrymen by thus 
moving them to emulation. ™*And my reason for this is what 
I have implied just above, that by the return of the Jews the whole 
world will receive what it longs for. The rejection of them has 
been the means of reconciling the world to God by the preaching 
to the Gentiles; their reception into the Kingdom, the gathering 
together of the elect from the four winds of heaven, will inaugurate 
the final consummation, the resurrection of the dead, and the 
eternal life that follows. 

* But what ground is there for thus believing in the return of the 
chosen people to the Kingdom? It is the holiness of the race. 
When you take from the kneading trough a piece of dough and 
offer it to the Lord as a heave-offering, do you not consecrate the 
whole mass? Do not the branches of a tree receive life and 
nourishment from the roots? So it is with Israel. Their fore- 
fathers the Patriarchs have been consecrated to the Lord, and in 
them the whole race; from that stock they obtain their spiritual life, 
a life which must be holy as its source is holy. ‘For the Church 
of God is like a ‘green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit,’ as the 
Prophet Jeremiah described it. Its roots are the Patriarchs; its 
branches the people of the Lord. Some of these branches have 
been broken off; Israelites who by birth and descent were members 
of the Church. Into their place you Gentiles, by a process quite 
strange and unnatural, have been grafted, shoots from a wild olive, 
into a cultivated stock. . Equally with the old branches which still 
remain on the tree you share in the rich sap which flows from its 
root. ™Do not for this reason think that you may insolently boast 
of the position of superiority which you occupy.. If you are 
inclined to do so, remember that you have done nothing, that all 
the spiritual privileges that you possess simply belong to the 
stock on which you by no merit of your own have been grafted. 
But perhaps you say: ‘That I am the favoured one is shown by 
this that others were cut off that I might be grafted in.’ * I grant 
what you say; but consider the reason. It was owing to their 
want of faith that they were broken off: you on the other hand 
owe yout firm position to your faith, not to any natural superiority. 
* It is an incentive therefore not to pride, as you seem to think, but 
to fear. For if God did not spare the holders of the birthright, 


320 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 11 


no grafted branches but the natural growth of the tree, He certainly 
will be no more ready to spare you, who have no such privileges 
to plead. ™ Learn the Divine goodness, but learn and understand 
the Divine severity as well. Those who have fallen have ex- 
perienced the severity, you the goodness; a goodness which will 
be continued if you cease to be self-confident and simply trust: 
otherwise you too may be cut off as they were. ™Nor again 
is the rejection of the Jews irrevocable. They can be grafted 
again into the stock on which they grew, if only they will give up 
their unbelief. For they are in God’s hands; and God’s power is 
not limited. He is able to restore them to the position from which 
they have fallen. For consider. You are the slip cut from the 
olive that grew wild, and yet, by a process which you must admit 
to be entirely unnatural, you were grafted into the cultivated stock. 
If God could do this, much more can He graft the natural branches 
of the cultivated olive on to their own stock from which they were 
cut. You Gentiles have no grounds for boasting, nor have the 
Jews for despair. Your position is less secure than was theirs, and 
if they only trust in God, their salvation will be easier than was 
yours. 


11. St. Paul has modified the question of ver. 2 so far: the 
rejection of Israel is only partial. But yet it is true that the rest, 
that is the majority, of the nation are spiritually blind. They have 
stumbled and sinned. Does this imply their final exclusion from 
the Messianic salvation? St. Paul shows that it is not so, It is 
only temporary and it has a Divine purpose. 

héyw odv. A new stage in the argument. ‘I ask then as to this 
majority whose state the prophets have thus described.” The 
question arises immediately out of the preceding verses, but is 
a stage in the argument running through the whole chapter, and 
raised by the discussion of Israel’s guilt in ix. 30-x. 21. 

pr érracav, va méowor; ‘have they (i.e. those who have been 
hardened, ver. 8) stumbled so as to fall?’ Mumguid ste offenderunt, 
ut caderent? Is their failure of such a character that they will be 
finally lost, and cut off from the Messianic salvation? {va expresses 
the contemplated result. The metaphor in érracav (which is often 
used elsewhere in a moral sense, Deut. vii. 25; James ii. 10; iil. 2; 
2 Pet. i. 10) seems to be suggested by cxavdadrov of ver.g. The 
meaning of the passage is given by the contrast between mraiew 
and meceiy ; a man who stumbles may recover himself, or he may 
fall completely. Hence sécwow is here used of a complete and 


xn} THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 321 


irrevocable fall. Cf. Is. xxiv. 20 Katia xuoe yap er avrns M7] avopia, Kat 
meceirat kai ov py Svvnrat dvactqva: Ps. Sol. iii. 13 éwecev dre wovnpor 
TO TT@pa avtov, Kai ove avagtncerat: Heb. iv. 11. It is no argument 
against this that the same word is used in wv. 22, 23 of a fall 
which is not irrevocable: the ethical meaning must be in each 
case determined by the context, and here the contrast with érraav 
suggests a fall that is irrevocable. 


There is a good deal of controversy among grammarians as to the admission 
of a laxer use of iva, a controversy which has a tendency to divide scholars 
by nations; the German grammarians with Winer at their head (§ liii. ro. 6, 
p- 573 E. T.) maintain that it always preserves, even in N. T. Greek, its 
classical meaning of purpose; on the other hand, English commentators such 
as Lightfoot (on Gal. v.17), Ellicott (on 1 Thess. v. 4), and Evans (on 1 Cor. 
vii. 29) admit the laxeruse. Evans says ‘ that iva, like our “ that,” has three 
uses: (1) fiza/ (in order that he may go), (2) definitive (I advise that he go), 
(3) subjectively ecbatic (have they stumbled that they should fall)’; and it 
is quite clear that it is only by reading into passages a great deal which is 
not expressed that commentators can make iva in all cases mean ‘in order 
that.’ In 1 Thess. v. 4 dpeis 5€, ddeApol, ode eare ev cxdTEA, va H Huepa 
buds ws kXénTns wataddBy, where Winer states that there is ‘a Divine 
purpose of God,’ this is not expressed either in the words or the context. 
In 1 Cor. vii. 29 6 xapds cuvectadpévos éoti, Td Aowndy iva Kal of ExovTes 
yuvaikas ws pr Exovtes Gat, ‘is it probable that a state of sitting loose to 
worldly interests should be described as the aim or purpose of God in 
curtailing the season of the great tribulation?’ (Evans.) Yet Winer asserts 
that the words iva kai of éxovres x.7.A. express the (Divine) purpose for 
which 6 xapds cuvectadpévos éoti. So again in the present passage it is 
only a confusion of ideas that can see any purpose. If St. Paul had used 
a passive verb such as émwpwOycay then we might translate, ‘have they been 
hardened in order that they may fall?’ and there would be no objection in 
logic or grammar, but as St. Paul has written érracayr, if there is a purpose 
in the passage it ascribes stumbling as a deliberate act undertaken with the 
purpose of falling. We cannot here any more than elsewhere read in 
a Divine purpose where it is neither implied nor expressed, merely for the 
sake of defending an arbitrary grammatical rule. 


py yévorro. St. Paul indignantly denies that the final fall of 
Israel was the contemplated result of their transgression. The 
result of it has already been the calling of the Gentiles, and the 
final purpose is the restoration of the Jews also. 

7@ avTav Tapamtdépatt: ‘by their false step,’ continuing the 
metaphor of émrarzav, 

H gwrnpia tois éveow. St. Paul is here stating an historical 
fact. His own preaching to the Gentiles had been caused definitely 
by the rejection of his message on the part of the Jews. Acts 
xiii. 45-48; cf. viii. 4; xi. 19; xxvili. 28. 

eis TO tapalndGcat atro’s: ‘to provoke them (the Jews) to 
jealousy.’ This idea had already been suggested (x. 19) by the 
quotation from Deuteronomy ’Ey@ zapa{nlace tpas én’ od eOvet. 

St. Paul in these two statements sketches the lines on which the 
Divine action is explained and justified. God’s purpose has been 
to use the disobedience of the Jews in order to promote the calling 


322 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 11, 12. 


of the Gentiles, and He will eventually arouse the Jews to give up 
their unbelief by emulation of the Gentiles, Eira xaracxevd{et, ore 
76 mraicpa aitav dumdqy oixovopiay épydtera’ ta Te yap €Ovn avracaye 
rai abrovs 8€ mapaxviCoy Kai épebiloy émorpéeper, wi) Pepovtas THY ToravTnY 
tov ebvav tysnv, Euthym.-Zig. 

12. St. Paul strengthens his statement by an argument drawn 
from the spiritual character of the Jewish people. If an event 
which has been so disastrous to the nation has had such a bene- 
ficial result, how much more beneficial will be the result of the 


entrance of the full complement of the nation into the Messianic 
kingdom? 

mAodros Kéopou: the enriching of the world by the throwing open 
to it of the kingdom of the Messiah: cf. x. 12 6 yap avrés Kipuos 
Tavr@v, TAOUT@Y eis maVvTas TOUS e7iKaAOUpEVOUS aUTOP, 

Td HtTHpa avrdy: ‘their defeat’ From one point of view the 
unbelief of the Jews was a transgression (mapdmropa), from another 
it was a defeat, for they were repulsed from the Messianic kingdom, 
since they had failed to obtain what they sought. 


RTtTnua occurs only twice elsewhere: in Is. xxxi. 8 of 832 veavioxos 
écovra els TT HMA, TEeTPA yap TEpiAnPOncovTa ws Xapaxt Kal r7nOncovTa: 
and in 1 Cor. vi. 7 75n pev ovv GAws ATT HUA byiv éoriv, Ste Kpivara ExeTE 
ped’ éautav, The correct interpretation of the word as derived from the 
verb would be a ‘defeat,’ and this is clearly the meaning in Isaiah, It can 
equally well apply in 1 Cor., whether it be translated a ‘defeat’ in that it 
lowers the Church in the opinion of the world, or a ‘moral defeat, hence 
a ‘defect.’ The same meaning suits this passage. The majority of com- 
mentators however translate it here ‘diminution’ (see especially Gif. Sp. 
Comm. pp. 194, 203), in order to make the antithesis to mAnpwya exact. 
But as Field points out (Otium Norv. iii. 97) there is no reason why the 
sentence should not be rhetorically faulty, and it is not much improved by 
giving 777nva the meaning of ‘impoverishment’ as opposed to ‘ replenish- 
ment.’ 


TS TAnpwpa adtav: ‘their complement,’ ‘their full and completed 
number.’ See on xi. 25. 


The exact meaning of mAjpwya has still to be ascertained. 1. There is 
a long and elaborate note on the word in Lft. Co/. p. 323 ff. He starts with 
asserting that ‘substantives in -ya formed from the perfect passive, appear 
always to have a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or 
a concrete thing; they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, 
or the product of the action: but in any case they give the result of the 
agency involved in the corresponding verb.’ He then takes the verb Anpovy 
and shows that it has two senses, (i) ‘ to fill,’ (ii) ‘to fulfil’ or ‘ complete’; 
and deriving the fundamental meaning of the word 7Anpmwya from the latter 
usage makes it mean in the N.T. always ‘that which is completed.’ 
2. A somewhat different view of the termination -ya is given by the late 
T. S. Evans in a note on 1 Cor. v. 6 in the Sp. Comm. (part of which is 
quoted above on Rom. iv. 2.) This would favour the active sense id guod 
smplet or adimplet, which appears to be the proper sense of the English word. 
‘complement’ (see the Philological Society's Zxg. Dict. s.y.). Perhaps the 
term ‘ concrete’ would most adequately express the normal meaning of the 
termination. 


XI. 13,14.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 323 


13,14. These two verses present a good deal of difficulty, of 
rather a subtle kind. 

. 1. What is the place occupied by the words tpiv d€ Ad, «7A, in 

the argument? (i) Some (Hort, WH, Lips.) place here the beginning 
of a new paragraph, so Dr. Hort writes: ‘after a passage on the 
rejection of unbelieving Israel, and on God’s ultimate purpose 
involved in it, St. Paul turns swiftly round.’ But an examination 
of the context will show that there is really no break in the ideas. 
The thought raised by the question in ver. 11 runs through the 
whole paragraph to ver. 24, in fact really to ver. 32, and the 
reference to the Gentiles in ver. 17 ff. is clearly incidental. Again 
ver. 15 returns directly to ver. 12, repeating the same idea, but in 
a way to justify also ver. 13. (ii) These verses in their appeal to 
the Gentiles are therefore incidental, almost parenthetic, and are 
introduced to show that this argument has an application to Gentiles 
as well as Jews. 

2. But what is the meaning of pev ody (that this is the correct 
reading see below)? It is usual to take ody in its ordinary sense of 
therefore, and then to explain pey by supposing an anacoluthon, 
or by finding the contrast in some words that follow. So Gif. 
‘St. Paul, with his usual delicate courtesy and perfect mastery of 
Greek, implies that this is but one part (uév) of his ministry, chosen 
as he was to bear Christ’s name “before Gentiles and kings and 
the children of Israel.’’ Winer and others find the antithesis in 
ei ras mapatnioow. But against these views may be urged. two 
reasons, (i) the meaning of pev of», The usage at any rate in the 
N.T. is clearly laid down by Evans on 1 Cor. vi. 3 (Speaker’s 
Comm. p. 285), ‘the odv may signify then or therefore only when 
the ev falls back upon the preceding word, because it is expectant 
of a coming 6¢ or drdp,’ otherwise, as is pointed out, the ev must 
coalesce with the odv, and the idea is either ‘corrective and substi- 
tutive of a new thought, or confirmative of what has been stated 
and addititious.’ Nowif there is this second use of pev od possible, 
unless the d¢ is clearly expressed the mind naturally would suggest 
it, especially in St. Paul’s writings where pev ody is generally so 
used: and as a matter of fact no instance is quoted in the N. T. 
where ovv in pev ovv has its natural force in a case where it is not 
followed by d¢ (Heb. ix. 1 quoted by Winer does not apply, see 
Westcott ad /oc.). But (ii) further ody is not the particle required 
here. What St. Paul requires is not an apology for referring to 
the Gentiles, but an apology to the Gentiles for devoting so much 
attention to the Jews. 

If these two points are admitted the argument becomes much 
clearer. St. Paul remembers that the majority of his readers are 
Gentiles ; he has come to a point where what he has to say touches 
them nearly; he therefore shows parenthetically how his love for 

Ye 


324 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 13, 


his countrymen, and his zeal in carrying out his mission to the 
Gentiles, combine towards producing the same end. ‘Do not think 
that what I am saying has nothing to do with you Gentiles. It 
makes me even more zealous in my work for you. That ministry 
of mine to the Gentiles I do honour to and exalt, seeking in this 
way if perchance I may be able to move my countrymen to 
jealousy.” Then in ver. 15 he shows how this again reacts upon 
the general scheme of his ministry. ‘And this I do, because their 
return to the Church will bring on that final consummation for 
which we all look forward.’ 

13. bpiv S€ A€yw «.t.A. The d¢€ expresses a slight contrast in 
thought, and the tpiv is emphatic: ‘ But it is to you Gentiles I am 
speaking. Nay more, so far as I am an Apostle of Gentiles, 
I glorify my ministry: if thus by any means,’ &c. 

eOvav dréatohos: comp. Acts xxii. 21; Gal. ii. 7,9; 1 Tim. ii. 7. 

thy Siaxoviay pou Softw, He may glorify his ministry, either 
(i) by his words and speech; if he teaches everywhere the duty of 
preaching to the Gentiles he exalts that ministry: or (ii), perhaps 
better, by doing all in his power to make it successful: comp. 
1 Cor. xii. 26 etre SofdCerat péXos. 

This verse and the references to the Gentiles that follow seem to 
show conclusively that St. Paul expected the majority of his readers 
to be Gentiles. Comp. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 22 ‘Though the 
Greek is ambiguous the context appears to me decisive for taking 
iyiv as the Church itself, and not as a part of it. In all the long 
previous discussion bearing on the Jews, occupying nearly two and 
a half chapters, the Jews are invariably spoken of in the third 
person. In the half chapter that follows the Gentiles are constantly 
spoken of in the second person. Exposition has here passed into 
exhortation and warning, and the warning is exclusively addressed 
to Gentiles: to Christians who had once been Jews not a word is 
addressed.’ 

The variations in reading in the particles which occur in this verse suggest 
that considerable difficulties were felt in its interpretation. For tpiv 5€ 
NABP minuse. pauc., Syrr. Boh. Arm., Theodrt. cod. Jo.-Damasc.; we find 
in C épiv obv; while the TR with DEFGL &c. Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. has 
ipiv yap. Again pey ody is read by NA BCP, Boh., Cyr.-Al. Jo.-Damasc. ; 
pe only by TR with L &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. (so Meyer); while the 
Western group DEF G and some minuscules omit both. 


It may be noticed in the Epp. of St. Paul that wherever pév obv or pevour 
"ve occur there is considerable variation in the reading. 
Rom. ix. 20: pevodvye NAKLP &c., Syrr. Boh.; yey ody B; omit al- 
together DFG. 
x. 18; pevodyye om. F Gd, Orig.-lat. 
1 Cor. vi. 4: pév ody most authorities ; F G your. 
vi. 7: pev ov ABC &c.; wév ND Boh. 
1 Phil. iii. 8: pev oty BDEFGKL &c.; pevodvye 8 AP Boh. 
The Western MSS. as a rule avoid the expression, while B is consistent im 
preferring it. 


XI. 14,15.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 325 


14. ei mas mapafnddow. «i mos is used here interrogatively with 
the aorist subjunctive (cp. Phil. iii, ro, 11). The grammarians 
explain the expression by saying that we are to understand with it 
oxonv, et mos occurs Acts xxvii. 12 with the optative, Rom. i. ro 
with the future. 

18 The two previous verses have been to a certain extent 
parenthetical; in this verse the Apostle continues the argument of 
ver. 2, repeating in a stronger form what he has there said, but in 
such a way as to explain the statement made in wv. 13, 14, that by 
thus caring for his fellow-countrymen he is fulfilling his mission 
to the Gentile world. The casting away of the Jews has meant 
the reconciliation of the world to Christ. Henceforth there is no 
more a great wall of partition separating God’s people from the 
rest of the world. ‘This is the first step in the founding of the 
Messianic kingdom; but when all the people of Israel shall have 
come in there will be the final consummation of all things, and this 
means the realization of the hope which the reconciliation of the 
world has made possible. 

dmoBohy: the rejection of the Jews for their faithlessness. The 
meaning of the word is defined by the contrasted mpdéoAnyis. 

kata\hayh Kéopou: cf. vv. ro, 11. The reconciliation was the 
immediate result of St. Paul’s ministry, which he describes elsewhere 
(2 Cor. v. 18, 19) as a ministry of reconciliation ; its final result, 
the hope to which it looks forward, is salvation (xarad\ayévres 
aabnoopeOa): the realization of this hope is what every Gentile 
must long for, and therefore whatever will lead to its fulfilment 
must be part of St. Paul’s ministry. 

mpdcdnis: the reception of the Jews into the kingdom of the 
Messiah. The noun is not used elsewhere in the N.T., but the 
meaning is shown by the parallel use of the verb (cf. xiv. 3; xv. 7). 

for ex vexpov. ‘The meaning of this phrase must be determined 
by that of karahAayy kéopov. The argument demands something 
much stronger than that, which may be a climax to the section. 
It may either be (1) used in a figurative sense, cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 3 ff.; 
Luke xv. 24, 32 6 adeAgds cov otros vexpos jv, kai E(yoe Kal drodwhas, 
xai evpébn. In this sense it would mean the universal diffusion of 
the Gospel message and a great awakening of spiritual life as the 
result of it. Or (2), it may mean the ‘ general Resurrection’ as 
a sign of the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. In this 
sense it would make a suitable antithesis to caradAayj. The recon- 
ciliation of the heathen and their reception into the Church on 
earth was the first step in a process which led ultimately to their 
cotnpia. It gave them grounds for hoping for that which they 
should enjoy in the final consummation. And this consummation 
would come when the kingdom was completed. In all contempo- 
tary Jewish literature the Resurrection (whether partial or general) 


326 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 15-24. 


is a sign of the inauguration of the new era. Schiirer, Geschichte, &c. 
ii. p. 460; /Judzlees xxiii. 29 ‘And at that time the Lord will heal 
his servants, and they will arise and will see great peace and will 
cast out their enemies; and the just shall see it and be thankful 
and rejoice in joy to all eternity. och li. 1 (p. 139 ed. Charles) 
‘And in those days will the earth also give back those who are 
treasured up within it, and Sheél also will give back that which it 
has received, and hell will give back that which it owes. And he 
will choose the righteous and holy from among them: for the day 
of their redemption has drawn nigh.’ As in the latter part of this 
chapter St Paul seems to be largely influenced by the language 
and forms of the current eschatology, it is very probable that the 
second interpretation is the more correct; cf. Origen viii. 9, p. 257 
Tunc enim erit assumtio Israel, quando tam et mortut vitam recipient 
ef mundus ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiet, et mortales immortalitale 
donabuntur; and see below ver. 26. 

16. St. Paul gives in this verse the grounds of his confidence in 
the future of Israel. This is based upon the holiness of the Patriarchs 
from whom they are descended and the consecration to God which 
has been the result of this holiness. His argument is expressed in 
two different metaphors, both of which however have the same 
purpose. 

amapx} ... vpaya, The metaphor in the first part of the 
verse is taken from Num. xv. 19, 20 ‘It shall be, that when ye 
eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering 
unto the Lord, Of the first of your dough (dmapynv @upaparos LXX) 
ye shall offer up a cake for an heave offering: as ye do the heave 
offering of the threshing floor, so shall ye heave it.” By the offering 
of the first-fruits, the whole mass was considered to be consecrated ; 
and so the holiness of the Patriarchs consecrated the whole people 
from whom they came. That the meaning of the drapyn is the 
Patriarchs (and not Christ or the select remnant) is shown by the 
parallelism with the second half of the verse, and by the explanation 
of St. Paul’s argument given in ver. 28 ayamnroi da tovs marépas. 

Gyia: ‘consecrated to God as the holy nation’ in the technical 
sense of dyos, cf. i. 7. 

pila . .. KAddor. The same idea expressed under a different 
image. Israel the Divine nation is looked upon as a tree; its 
roots are the Patriarchs; individual Israelites are the branches. 
As then the Patriarchs are holy, so are the Israelites who: belong 
to the stock of the tree, and are nourished.by the sap which 
flows up to them from those roots. 

17-24. The metaphor used in the second part of ver. 16 suggests 
an image which the Apostle developes somewhat elaborately. The 
image of an olive tree to describe Israel is taken from the Prophets ; 
Jeremiah xi. 16 ‘The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, 


XI. 17-24.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 327 


fair with goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult He hath 
kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken’; Hosea 
xiv. 6 ‘His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the 
olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.’ Similar is the image of the 
vine in Is. v. 7; Ps. Ixxx. 8; and (of the Christian Chyrch) in John 
xv. 1 ff. 

The main points in this simile are the following :— 

The olive = the Church of God, looked at as one continuous 
body; the Christian Church being the inheritor of the 
privileges of the Jewish Church. 

The root or stock (fifa) = that stock from which Jews and 
Christians both alike receive their nourishment and strength, 
viz. the Patriarchs, for whose faith originally Israel was 
chosen (cf. vv. 28, 29). 

The branches (of «AdSoc) are the individual members of the 
Church who derive their nourishment and virtue from the 
stock or body to which they belong. These are of two 
kinds: 

The original branches; these represent the Jews. Some have 
been cut off from their want of faith, and no longer derive 
any nourishment from the stock. 

The branches of the wild olive which have been grafted in. 
These are the Gentile Christians, who, by being so grafted 
in, have come to partake of the richness and virtue of the 
olive stem. 

From this simile St. Paul draws two lessons. (1) The first is 
to a certain extent incidental. It is a warning to the heathen 
against undue exaltation and arrogance. By an entirely unnatural 
process they have been grafted into the tree. Any virtue that 
they may have comes by no merit of their own, but by the virtue 
of the stock to which they belong; and moreover at any moment 
they may be cut off. It will be a less violent process to cut off 
branches not in any way belonging to the tree, than it was to cut 
off the original branches. But (2)—and this is the more im- 
portant result to be gained from the simile, as it is summed up in 
ver. 24—if God has had the power against all nature to graft in 
branches from a wild olive and enable them to bear fruit, how much 
more easily will He be able to restore to their original place the 
branches which have been cut off. 

St. Paul thus deduces from his simile consolation for Israel, but 
incidentally also a warning to the Gentile members of the Church— 
a warning made necessary by the great importance ascribed to 
them in ver. 11 f. Israel had been rejected for their sake. 

17. twés: a meiosis. Cf. iii. 3 ti yap ef nriotnody tues; Teves dé 
etme, mapapvOotpevos avtous, @s moAAdkis cipyxaper, met TOAAG wAciovs of 


amotjcavtes. Euthym.-Zig. 


328 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 17, 18. 


éfexdoOycav. The same simile is used, with a different applica- 
tion, Lnoch xxvi. 1 kai éxeidev epadevaa eis rd péoov ris yas, Kai tov 
Tomov nuAoynpevor, év @ d€évdpa Exovta mapapuadas pevovoas cat Bractoveas 
tov dévdpou exkorevtos. 

dypiédatos: ‘the wild olive.’ The olive, like the apple and most 
other fruit trees, requires to have a graft from a cultivated tree, 
otherwise the fruit of the seedling or sucker will be small and 
valueless. The ungrafted tree is the natural or wild olive. It is 
often confused with the oleaster (Eveagnus angustifolius), but quite 
incorrectly, this being a plant of a different natural order, which 
however like the olive yields oil, although of an inferior character. 
See Tristram, Vatural Hist. of the Bible, pp. 371-377: 

Bexeripiotys d év adtots: ‘wert grafted in amongst the branches of 
the cultivated olive.’ St. Paul is here describing a wholly unnatural 
process. Grafts must necessarily be of branches from a cultivated 
olive inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one 
which would be valueless and is never performed. But the whole 
strength of St. Paul’s argument depends upon the process being 
an unnatural one (cf. ver. 24 kal mapa picw evexevtpiobys); it is 
beside the point therefore to quote passages from classical writers, 
which, even if they seem to support St. Paul’s language, describe 
a process which can never be actually used. They could only show 
the ignorance of others,they would not justify him. Cf. Origen viii. ro, 
p- 265 Sed ne hoc quidem lateat nos in hoc loco, quod non eo ordine 
Apostolus olivae et oleastrt similitudinem posutt, quo apud agricolas 
habetur. Illi enim magis olivam oleastro inserere, et non olivae 
oleastrum solent: Paulus vero Apostolica auctoritate ordine com- 
mutato res magis causis, quam causas rebus aptavit. 

guykowwvds: 1 Cor. ix, 23; Phil. i. 7; and cf. Eph. iii. 6 efvas ra 
€Ovm avykAnpovopa kat ctacwpa kal ovppéroxa THs éenayyeAias ev Xpiore@ 
"Incod dia Tov evayyeXiov, 

tis pilns tis mLdTHTOS THs éAatas: comp. Jud. ix. g Kai clmev avrois 
7) €Xaia, Mi amodciyvaca thy midtytd pou... mopevoopa; Test. XII. 
Pat. Levi, 8 6 méunros Kdddov por éAaias €d@xe miornros. The 
genitive tHs mdrnros is taken by Weiss as a genitive of quality, as 
in the quotation above, and so the phrase comes to mean ‘the fat 
root of the olive.’ Lips. explains ‘ the root from which the fatness 
of the olive springs.’ 

The genitive t7s mérnros seemed clumsy and unnatural to later revisers, 
and so was modified either by the insertion of «ai after fi¢ns, as in N° A and 


later MSS. with Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Chrys., or by the omission 
of 77s pi¢ys in Western authorities D F G Iren.-lat. 


18. pi) katakxavxd tav kdddSwv. St. Paul seems to be thinking of 
Gentile Christians who despised the Jews, both such as had 
become believers and such as had not. The Church of Corinth 
could furnish many instances of new converts who were carried 


XI. 18-22.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 329 


away by a feeling of excessive confidence, and who, partly on 
grounds of race, partly because they had understood or thought 
they had understood the Pauline teaching of eAev@epia, were full o. 
contempt for the Jewish Christians and the Jewish race. Inci- 
dentally St. Paul takes the opportunity of rebuking such as them. 

ob od thy pilav x«.t.A. ‘All your spiritual strength comes from 
the stock on which you have been grafted.’ In the ordinary process 
it may be when a graft of the cultivated olive is set on a wild stock 
the goodness of the fruit comes from the graft, but in this case it 1s 
the reverse ; any merit, any virtue, any hope of salvation that the 
Gentiles may have arises entirely from the fact that they are grafted 
on a stock whose roots are the Patriarchs and to which the Jews, 
by virtue of their birth, belong. 

19. épets ody. The Gentile Christian justifies his feeling of 
confidence by reminding St. Paul that branches (cAddo, not of 
xddo) had been cut off to let him in: therefore, he might argue, 
I am of more value than they, and have grounds for my self- 
confidence and contempt. 

20. xah@s. St. Paul admits the statement, but suggests that the 
Gentile Christian should remember what were the conditions on 
which he was admitted. The Jews were cast off for want of faith, he 
was admitted for faith. There was no merit of his own, therefore 
he has no grounds for over-confidence: ‘Be not high-minded; 
rather fear, for if you trust in your merit instead of showing faith 
in Christ, you will suffer as the Jews did for their self-confidence 
and want of faith.’ 

21. et yap 6 Ocds x.7.A. This explains the reason which made 
it right that they should fear. ‘The Jews—the natural branches— 
disbelieved and were not spared; is it in any way likely that you, 
if you disbelieve, will be spared when they were not—you who have 
not any natural right or claim to the position you now occupy?’ 


ovSé cou detcerat is the correct reading (with NA BC P mz. pauc., Boh., 
Orig.-lat., &c.); either because the direct future seemed too strong or under 
the influence of the Latin (#e forte nec tibt parcat Vulg. and Iren.-lat.) yams 
ovdé gov was read by DE GL &c., Syrr. Chrys. &c., then peicerar was changed 
into geicnra: (min. pauc. and Chrys.) for the sake of the grammar, and found 
its way into the TR. 


22. The Apostle sums up this part of his argument by deducing 
from this instance the two sides of the Divine character. God is full 
of goodness (xpyordrns, cf. ii. 4) and loving-kindness towards man- 
kind, and that has been shown by His conduct towards those 
Gentiles who have been received into the Christian society. That 
goodness will always be shown towards them if they repose their 
confidence on it, and do not trust in their own merits or the 
privileged position they enjoy. On the other hand the treatment 
of the Jews shows the severity which also belongs to the character 


330 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 22-24 


of God; a severity exercised against them just because they trusted 
in themselves. God can show the same severity against the Gentiles 
and cut them off as well as the Jew. 


dnoropia and xpyorérns should be read in the second part of the verse, 
with 8 ABC Orig. Jo.-Damasc. against the accusative of the Western and 
Syrian text. D has a mixed reading, dworopiay and xpyorérns: the as- 
similation was easier in the first word than in the second. The @eov after 
xpnorérns is omitted by later MSS. with Clem.-Alex., Orig. from a desire 
for uniformity. 


édv émpeivys. The condition of their enjoying this goodness is 
that they trust in it, and not in their position. 

kal oJ: emphatic like the ¢yo of ver. 19 ‘ You too as well as the 

ews.’ 

23. St. Paul now turns from the warning to the Gentile Christians, 
which was to a certain extent incidental, to the main subject of the 
paragraph, the possibility of the return of the Jews to the Divine 
Kingdom ; their grafting into the Divine stock. 

kai éxetvor 8€: ‘yes, and they too.’ 

24. This verse sums up the main argument. If God is so 
powerful that by a purely unnatural process (zapa pvow) He can 
graft a branch of wild olive into a stock of the cultivated plant, so 
that it should receive nourishment from it ; can He not equally well, 
nay far more easily, reingraft branches which have been cut off 
the cultivated olive into their own stock? The restoration of 
Israel is an easier process than the call of the Gentiles, 


The Merits of the Fathers. 


In what sense does St. Paul say that Israelites are holy because 
the stock from which they come is holy (ver. 16), that they are 
dyannrot Sia tovs marépas (ver. 28)? He might almost seem to be 
taking up himself the argument he has so often condemned, that 
the descent of the Jews from Abraham is sufficient ground for 
their salvation. 

The greatness of the Patriarchs had become one of the common- 
places of Jewish Theology. For them the world was created (Afoc. 
Baruch, xxi. 24). They had been surrounded by a halo of myth 
and romance in popular tradition and fancy (see the note on iv. 3), 
and very early the idea seems to have prevailed that their virtues 
had a power for others as well as for themselves. Certainly Ezekiel 
in the interests of personal religion has to protest against some 
such view: ‘ Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were 
in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, 
saith the Lord God’ (Ezek. xiv. 14). We know how this had 
developed by the time of our Lord, and the cry had arisen: ‘We 


XI. 11-24.] THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 331 


have Abraham for our father’ (see note on ii. 3). At a later date 
the doctrine of the merits of the Fathers had been developed 
into a system. As Israel was an organic body, the several 
members of which were closely bound together, the superfluous 
merits of the one part might be transferred to another. Of 
Solomon before he sinned it was said that he earned all by his 
own merit, after he sinned by the merit of the Fathers (Kohe/ 
rabba 60°). A comment on the words of Cant. i. 5 ‘I am black, 
but comely,’ closely resembles the dictum of St. Paul in ver. 18 
‘The congregation of Israel speaks: I am black through mine 
own works, but lovely through the works of my fathers’ (Shemoth 
rabba, c. 23). So again: ‘Israel lives and endures, because it 
supports itself on the fathers’ (zd. c. 44). A very close parallel to 
the metaphor of ver. 17 f. is given by Wajjzkra rabda, c. 36 ‘As 
this vine supports itself on a trunk which is dry, while it is itself 
fresh and green, so Israel supports itself on the merit of the fathers, 
although they already sleep.’ So the merit of the fathers is a general 
possession of the whole people of Israel, and the protection of the 
whole people in the day of Redemption (Shemoth rabba, c. 44; 
Beresch rabba, c. 40). So Pestkta 153% ‘The Holy One spake to 
Israel: My sons, if ye will be justified by Me in the judgement, 
make mention to Me of the merits of your fathers, so shall ye be 
justified before Me in the judgement’ (see Weber, Al/syn. Theol. 
p- 280 f.). 

Now, Pease St. Paul lays great stress on the merits of the 
Fathers, it becomes quite clear that he had no such idea as this in 
his mind; and it is convenient to put the developed Rabbinical 
idea side by side with his teaching in order to show at once the 
resemblance and the divergence of the two views. It is quite clear 
in the first place that the Jews will not be restored to the Kingdom 
on any ground but that of Faith; so ver. 23 eav wy empeivoor tH 
dmortig. And in the second place St. Paul is dealing (as becomes 
quite clear below) not with the salvation of individuals, but with 
the restoration of the nation as a whole. The merits of the Fathers 
are not then looked upon as the cause of Israel’s salvation, but as 
a guarantee that Israel will attain that Faith which is a necessary 
condition of their being saved. It is a guarantee from either of 
two points of view. So far as our Faith is God’s gift, and so far 
as we can ascribe to Him feelings of preference or affection for one 
race aS opposed to another (and we can do so just as much as 
Scripture does), it is evidence that Israel has those qualities 
which will attract to it the Divine Love. Those qualities of the 
founders of the race, those national qualities which Israel inherits, 
and which caused it to be selected as the Chosen People, these it 
still possesses. And on the other side so far as Faith comes by 
human effort or character. so far that Faith of Abraham, for which 


332 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 25-86. 


he was accounted righteous before God, is a guarantee that the 
same Faith can be developed in his descendants. After all it is 
because they are a religious race, clinging too blindly to their own 
views, that they are rejected, and not because they are irreligious. 
They have a zeal for God, if not according to knowledge. When 
the day comes that that zeal is enlisted in the cause of the Messiah, 
the world will be won for Christ; and that it will be so enlisted the 
sanctity and the deep religious instinct of the Jewish stock as 
exhibited by the Patriarchs is, if not certain proof, at any rate evi- 
dence which appeals with strong moral force. 


MERCY TO ALL THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF GOT). 


XI. 25-36. All this is the unfolding of a mystery. The 
whole world, both Few and Gentile, shall enter the Kingdom; 
but a passing phase of disobedience has been allowed to the 
Fews now.as to the Gentiles in the past, that both alike, few 
as well as Gentile, may need and receive the Divine mercy 
(vv. 25-32). What a stupendous exhibition of the Divine 
mercy and wisdom (vv. 33-36)! 


** But I must declare to you, my brethren, the purpose hitherto 
concealed, but now revealed in these dealings of God with His 
people. I must not leave you ignorant. I must guard you 
against self-conceit on this momentous subject. That hardening 
of heart which has come upon Israel is only partial and temporary. 
It is to last only until the full complement of the Gentiles has 
entered into Christ’s kingdom. * When this has come about then the 
whole people of Israel shall be saved. So Isaiah (lix. 20) described 
the expected Redeemer as one who should come forth from the 
Holy city and should remove impieties from the descendants of ~ 
Jacob, and purify Israel: #7 he would in fact fulfil God’s covenant 
with His people, and that would imply, as Isaiah elsewhere explains 
(xxvii. 9), a time when God would forgive Israel’s sins. This is 
our ground for believing that the Messiah who has come will bring 
salvation to Israel, and that He will do it by exercising the Divine pre- 
rogative of forgiveness; if Israel now needs forgiveness this only 
makes us more confident of the truth of the prophecy. *In the 
Divine plan, according to which the message of salvation has been 
preached, the Jews are treated as enemies of God, that room may 


XI. 25-36.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 333 


be found for you Gentiles in the kingdom; but this does not alter 
the fact that by the Divine principle of selection, they are still the 
beloved of the Lord, chosen for the sake of their ancestors, the 
Patriarchs. **God has showered upon them His blessings and 
called them to His privileges, and He never revokes the choice 
He has made. “There is thus a parallelism between your case 
and theirs. You Gentiles were once disobedient to God. Now it’ 
has been Israel’s turn to be disobedient; and that disobedience has 
brought to you mercy. ™In like manner their present disobedience 
will have this result: that they too will be recipients of the same 
mercy that you have received. “*And the reason for the dis- 
obedience may be understood in both cases, if we look to the final 
purpose. God has, as it were, locked up all mankind, first Gentiles 
and then Jews, in the prison-house of unbelief, that He may be able 
at last to show His mercy on all alike. 

88 When we contemplate a scheme like this spread out before us 
in vast panorama, how forcibly does it bring home to us the in- 
exhaustible profundity of that Divine mind by which it was planned! 
The decisions which issue from that mind and the methods by which 
it works are alike inscrutable to man. “Into the secrets of the 
Almighty none can penetrate. No counsellor stands at His ear to 
whisper words of suggestion. ** Nothing in Him is derived from 
without so as to be claimed back again by its owner. * He is the 
source of all things. Through Him all things flow. He is the 
final cause to which all things tend. Praised for ever be His 
name! Amen. 


25-36. St. Paul’s argument is now drawing to acclose. He has 
treated all the points that are necessary. He has proved that 
the rejection of Israel is not contrary to Divine justice or Divine 
promises. He has convicted Israel of its own responsibility. He 
has shown how historically the rejection of Israel had been the 
cause of preaching the Gospel to the heathen, and this has led to 
far-reaching speculation on the future of Israel and its ultimate 
restoration ; a future which may be hoped for in view of the spiritual 
character of the Jewish race and the mercy and power of God. 
And now he seems to see all the mystery of the Divine purpose 
unfolded before him, and he breaks away from the restrained and 
formal method of argument he has hitherto imposed upon himself. 
Just as when treating of the Resurrection, his argument passes into 
revelation, ‘ Behold, I tell you a mystery’ (1 Cor. xv. 51): so here 


334 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI. 25. 


he declares not merely as the result of his argument, but as an 
authoritative revelation, the mystery of the Divine purpose. 

25. 08 yap dw Suds dyvoetv: cf.i.13; 1 Cor. x. 1; xii. 13 2Cor. 
i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 13: a phrase used by St. Paul to emphasize 
something of especial importance which he wishes to bring home 
to his readers. It always has the impressive addition of ‘ brethren.’ 
The yap connects the verse immediately with what precedes, but 
also with the general argument. St. Paul’s argument is like 
a ladder; each step follows from what precedes; but from time to 
time there are, as it were, resting-places which mark a definite 
point gained towards the end he has in view. 

TO puotyptoy tooro. On the meaning of ‘mystery’ in St. Paul 
see Lightfoot, Colossians, i. 26; Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Gk. p. 57 ff. 
Just at the time when Christianity was spreading, the mysteries as 
professing to reveal something more than was generally known, 
especially about the future state, represented the most popular form 
of religion, and from them St. Paul borrows much of his phraseology. 
So in Col. i. 28, 1 Cor. ii. 6 we have réAesov, in Phil. iv. 12 
pepinpat, in Eph. i. 13 odpayifer@ac; so in Ign. Ephes. 12 Iavou 
cvppvora, But whereas among the heathen Buaripioy was always 
used of a mystery concealed, with St. Paul it is a mystery revealed. 
It is his mission to make known the Word of God, the mystery 
which has been kept silent from eternal ages, but has now been 
revealed to mankind (1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 3, 4; Rom. xvi. 25). 
This mystery, which has been declared in Christianity, is the eternal 
purpose of God to redeem mankind in Christ, and all that is im- 
plied in that. Hence it is used of the Incarnation (1 Tim. iii. 16), 
of the crucifixion of Christ (1 Cor. ii. 1, 7), of the Divine purpose 
to sum up all things in Him (Eph. i. 9), and especially of the 
inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom (Eph. iii. 3, 4; Col. i. 26, 
27; Rom. xvi. 25). Here it is used in a wide sense of the whole 
plan or scheme of redemption as revealed to St. Paul, by which 
Jews and Gentiles alike are to be included in the Divine Kingdom, 
and all things are working up, although in ways unseen and 
unknown, to that end. 

tva pi) ite wap’ éaurots dpdvipor: ‘that you may not be wise in 
your own conceits,’ i.e. by imagining that it is in any way through 
your own merit that you have accepted what others have refused: 
it has been part of the eternal purpose of God. 

év éavrois ought probably to be read with A B, Jo.-Damasc. instead of map” 
gavrois SC DL &c., Chrys. &c., as the latter w ould probably be introjuced 


from xii. 16. Both expressions occur in the LXX. Is. v. ar of avverot év 
Savtois, Prov. iii. 7 2) icOe ppovipos mapa ceauTd. 


mépwots «.7..: ‘a hardening in part’ (cf. é« uépous 1 Cor. xii. 27). 


St. Paul asserts once more what he has constantly insisted on 
throughout this chapter, that this fall of the Jews is only par‘ial 


XI. 25, 26.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 335 


(cf. vv. 5, 7, 17), but here he definitely adds a point to which he 
has been working up in the previous section, that it is only tem- 
porary and that the limitation in time is ‘until all nations of the 
earth come into the kingdom’; cf. Luke xxi. 24 ‘and Jerusalem 
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the 
Gentiles be fulfilled.’ 

76 wAjpwopa tay éOvav: the full completed number, the comple- 
ment of the Gentiles, i.e. the Gentile world as a whole, just as in 
ver. 12 Td wAnpoya is the Jewish nation as a whole. 


There was a Jewish basis to these speculations on the completed number. 
Apoc. Baruch xxiii. 4 guia guando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra 
eos gui signerentur, tunc numerata est multitudo eorum gui gignerentur, 
et numero illt pracparatus est locus ubi habitarent viventes et ubi custo- 
direntur mortuz, nisi ergo compleatur numerus praedictus ~on vivet creatura 

4 (5) Ezra ii. 40, 41 (where Jewish ideas underlie a Christian work) 
recipe, Sion, numerum tuum ef conclude candidatos tuos, gut legem Domini 
compleverunt: filiorum tuorum, quos optabas, plenus est numerus: 7voga 
imperium Domini ut sanctificetur populus tuus qué vocatus est ab initio. 


etoedOn was used almost technically of entering into the Kingdom 
or the Divine glory or life (cf. Matt. vii. 21; xviii. 8; Mark ix. 
43-47-), and so came to be used absolutely in the same sense 
(Matt. vii. 13; xxiii. 13; Luke xiii. 24). 

26. kat ottw: ‘and so,’ i.e. by the whole Gentile world coming 
into the kingdom and thus rousing the Jews to jealousy, cf. ver. 11 f. 
These words ought to form a new sentence and not be joined 
with the preceding, for the following reasons: (1) the reference of 
ovrw is to the sentence dypis of «.7.A. We must not therefore 
make otro ... cwOjoerae coordinate with wapwos... yeyovey and 
subordinate to 6m, for if we did so ovrw would be explained by 
the sentence with which it is coordinated, and this is clearly not 
St. Paul’s meaning. He does not mean that Israel will be saved 
because it is hardened. (2) The sentence, by being made in- 
dependent, acquires much greater emphasis and force. 

mas “Ilopajk. In what sense are these words used? (1) The 
whole context shows clearly that it is the actual Israel of history 
that is referred to. This is quite clear from the contrast with ro 
m\npopa tev cbvey in ver. 25, the use of the term Israel in the same 
verse, and the drift of the argument in wv. 17-24. It cannot be 
interpreted either of the spiritual Israel, as by Calvin, or the 
remnant according to the election of grace, or such Jews as believe, 
or all who to the end of the world shall turn unto the Lord. 

(2) mas must be taken in the proper meaning of the word: 
“Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation,’ and not as necessarily in- 
cluding every individual Israelite. Cf. 1 Kings xii. 1 «ali etre 
_Sapound mpds mavta “Iopajd: 2 Chron. xii. I é¢yxaréAuve tas évTodas 
Kupiov kai mas Iopayd per avtod: Dan.ix. 11 kai mas “lopand mapeByoas 
Tov vopoy gov Kal e€€xAway Tod ui) axodoat THS Pwrvys cov. 


336 _ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XI 26, 27. 


ow6hoetrar: ‘shall attain the cergpia of the Messianic age by 
being received into the Christian Church’: the Jewish conception 
of the Messianic cornpia being fulfilled by the spiritual cwrnpia of 
Christianity. Cf. x. 13. 

So the words of St. Paul mean simply this. The people of 
Israel as a nation, and no longer amé pepovs, shall be united with 
the Christian Church. They do not mean that every Israelite shall 
finally be saved. Of final salvation St. Paul is not now thinking, 
nor of God’s dealings with individuals, nor does he ask about those 
who are already dead, or who will die before this salvation of 
Israel is attained. He is simply considering God’s dealings with 
the nation asa whole. As elsewhere throughout these chapters, 
St. Paul is dealing with peoples and classes of men. He looks 
forward in prophetic vision to a time when the whole earth, 
including the kingdoms of the Gentiles (ro mAnpopa rév €6vev) and 
the people of Israel (nas "Iopand), shall be united in the Church of 
God. 

26, 27. xaas yéypantar. The quotation is taken from the 
LXX of Is. lix. 20, the concluding words being added from Is. 
xxvii. 9. The quotation is free: the only important change, how- 
ever, is the substitution of é« Sidy for the evexey Sidy of the LXX. 
The Hebrew reads ‘and a Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto 
them that turn from transgression in Jacob.’ The variation 
apparently comes from Ps, xiii. 7, lii. 7 (LXX) ris dace €k Sedv rd 
cernptov Tod Iopana 5 

The passage occurs in the later portion of Isaiah, just where the 
Prophet dwells most fully on the high spiritual destinies of Israel; 
and its application to the Messianic kingdom is in accordance with 
the spirit of the original and with Rabbinic interpretation. St. Paul 
uses the words to imply that the Redeemer, who is represented by 
the Prophets as coming from Zion, and is therefore conceived by 
him as realized in Christ, will in the end redeem the whole of Israel. 
The passage, as quoted, implies the complete purification of Israel 
from their iniquity by the Redeemer and the forgiveness of their 
sins by God. 

In these speculations St. Paul was probably strongly influenced, 
at any rate as to their form, by Jewish thought. The Rabbis con- 
nected these passages with the Messiah: cf. Tract, Sanhedrin, f. 
98. 1 ‘R. Jochanan said: When thou shalt see the time in which 
many troubles shall come like a river upon Israel, then expect the 
Messiah himself as says Is. lix. 19.’ Moreover a universal restora- 
tion of Israel was part of the current Jewish expectation. All 
Israel should be collected together. There was to be a kingdom 
in Palestine, and in order that Israel as a whole might share in | 
this there was to be a general resurrection. Nor was the belief in 
the coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles without parallel. 


XI. 26-29.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 337 


Although later Judaism entirely denied all hope to the Gentiles, 
much of the Judaism of St. Paul’s day still maintained the O. T. 
belief (Is. xiv. 2; Ixvi. 12, 19-21; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27). So 
Enoch xc. 33 ‘And all that had been destroyed and dispersed and 
all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heaven assembled 
in that house, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy 
because they were all good and had returned to his house.’ Orae. 
Sibyll. iii. 710 f. cat tore 89 vaoor aca Todses 7 epéovow ... dcire, 
mecovtes imavtes emt xOovt Aico@pecGa abavdroy Bacidja, Oeov péyav 
aévaéy tre, Ps. Sol. xvii. 33-35 ‘And he shall purge Jerusalem and 
make it holy, even as it was in the days of old, so that the nations 
may come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as 
gifts her sons that had fainted, and may see the glory of the Lord, 
wherewith God hath glorified her.’ The centre of this kingdom 
will be Jerusalem (compare the extract given above), and it is 
perhaps influenced by these conceptions that St. Paul in ix. 26 
inserts the word ‘there’ and here reads é« Siav. If this be so, it 
shows how, although using so much of the forms and language of 
current conceptions, he has spiritualized just as he has broadened 
them. Gal. iv. 26 shows that he is thinking of a Jerusalem which 
is above, very different from the purified earthly Jerusalem of the 
Rabbis; and this enables us to see how here also a spiritual 
conception underlies much of his language. 

6 pudpevos: Jesus as the Messiah. Cf. 1 Thess. i. ro. 

27. xal airy «.7.4.: ‘and whensoever I forgive their sins then 
shall my side of the covenant I have made with them be fulfilled.’ 

28. kata perv Td edayyéAvoy: ‘as regards the Gospel order, the 
principles by which God sends the Gospel into the world.” This 
verse sums up the argument of vv. 11-24. 

éxOpoi: treated by God as enemies and therefore shut off from 

im. 

8 Spas: ‘for your sake, in order that you by their exclusion 
may be brought into the Messianic Kingdom.’ 

kata Sé thy éxhoyyv: ‘as regards the principle of election:’ 
‘because they are the chosen race.’ That this is the meaning is 
shown by the fact that the word is parallel to evayyéXuov. It cannot 
mean here, as in wv. 5, 6, ‘as regards the elect,’ i.e. the select 
remnant. It gives the grounds upon which the chosen people were 
beloved. With dyamnrot, cf. ix. 25; the quotation there probably 
suggested the word. 

Sia Tols matépas: cf. ix. 4; xi. 16 f.: ‘for the sake of the Patri- 
archs’ from whom the Israelites have sprung and who were well- 
pleasing to God. 

29. St. Paul gives the reason for believing that God will not 
desert the people whom He has called, and chosen, and on whom 
He has showered His Divine blessings. It lies in the unchangeable 

z 


338 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ [XI 29-32, 


nature of God: He does not repent Him of the choice that He has 
made. 

éperapé\nta: 2 Cor. vii. ro. The Divine gifts, such as have 
been enumerated in ix. 4, 5, and such as God has showered upon 
the Jews, bear the impress of the Giver. As He is not one who 
will ever do that for which He will afterwards feel compunction, 
His feelings of mercy towards the Jews will never change. 

4 KAfjous: the calling to the Kingdom. 

30. The grounds for believing that God does not repent for the 
gifts that He has given may be gathered from the parallelism 
between the two cases of the Jews and the Gentiles, in one of which 
His purpose has been completed, in the other not so. The Gentile 
converts were disobedient once, as St. Paul has described at length 
in the first chapter, but yet God has now shown pity on them, and 
to accomplish this He has taken occasion from the disobedience of 
the Jews: the same purpose and the same plan of providence may 
be seen also in the case of the Jews. God's plan is to make dis- 
obedience an opportunity of showing mercy. The disobedience 
of the Jews, like that of the Gentiles, had for its result the manifesta. 
tion of the mercy of God. 

The Spets shows that this verse is written, as is all this chapter. 
with the thought of Gentile readers prominently before the writer's 
mind. 

81. 16 Spetépw édder: ‘by that same mercy which was shown to 
you.’ Ifthe Jews had remained true to their covenant God would 
have been able on His side merely to exhibit fidelity to the 
covenant, As they have however been disobedient, they equally 
with the Gentiles are recipients of tne Divine mercy. These words 
T@ tuerepw edéee GO with eArenGaor, ef. Gal. ii. 10; 2 Cor. xii. 7, as is 
shown by the parallelism of the two clauses 


pov 8€ HrenOnre Tj Tourev areGeig 
To) tperepm édée ta xai avrot viv €denbaar. 


This parallelism of the clauses may account for the presence of 
the second viv with éXenédox, which should be read with & B D, Boh., 
Jo. Damasc. It was omitted by Syrian and some Western authorities 
(AEFG, &c. Vulg. Syrr. Arm, Aeth., Orig.-lat. rell.) because it 
seemed hardly to harmonize with facts. The authorities for it 
are too varied for it to be an accidental insertion arising from a 
repetition of the previous vd». 

82. St. Paul now generalizes from these instances the character 
of God’s plan, and concludes his argument with a maxim which 
solves the riddle of the Divine action. There is a Divine purpose 
in the sin of mankind described in i. 18-iii, 20; there is a Divine 


XI. 32, 33.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 339 


purpose in the faithlessness of the Jews. The object of both alike 
is to give occasion for the exhibition of the Divine mercy. If God 
has shut men up in sin it is only that He may have an oppor- 
tunity of showing His compassion. So in Gal. iii. 22 dd\a ow- 
éxheioev 7) ypap?) Ta Tavta bro apuapriay, iva H emrayyeAia ex miotews "Inocod 
Xpwwrod 8069 rois morevovar, the result of sin is represented as being 
to give the occasion for the fulfilment of the promise and the 
mission of the Messiah. All God’s dealings with the race are in 
accordance with His final purpose. However harsh they may 
seem, when we contemplate the final end we can only burst forth 
into thankfulness to God. 

ouvéxhetce yap 6 Oeds: cf. i. 24 f., and see below, p. 347. 

ouvéxhetce: Ps, Ixxviii [Ixxvii]. 62 ‘He gave his people over 
unto the sword (cuvékdcwev cis poudaiav).’ Used with the pregnant 
sense of giving over so that there can be no escape. 

tods mavtas. Not necessarily every single individual, but all looked 
at collectively, as the mAnpapa trav e6vdv and was Iopand. All the classes 
into which the world may be divided, Jew and Gentile alike, will be 
admitted into the Messianic Kingdom or God’s Church. The 
reference is not here any more than elsewhere to the final salvation 
of every individual. 

83. St. Paul has concluded his argument. He has vindicated 
the Divine justice and mercy. He has shown how even the reign 
of sin leads to a beneficent result. And now, carried away by the 
contrast between the apparent injustice and the real justice of God, 
having demonstrated that it is our knowledge and not His goodness 
that is at fault when we criticize Him, he bursts forth in a great 
ascription of praise to Him, declaring the unfathomable character 
of His wisdom. 

We may notice that this description of the Divine wisdom re- 
presents not so much the conclusion of the argument as the assump- 
tion that underlies it. It is because we believe in the infinite 
character of the Divine power and love that we are able to argue 
that if in one case unexpectedly and wonderfully His action has 
been justified, therefore in other cases we may await the result, 
resting in confidence on His wisdom. 


Marcion’s text, which had omitted everything between x. 5 and xi. 34 (see 
on ch. x) here resumes. Tert. quotes vv. 32, 33 as follows: o profundum 
divitiarum et sapientiae Dei, et ininvestigabiles viae eius, omitting Kai 
yraoews and ws avefepedvnta Ta Kpivata aitov. Then follow vv. 34, 35 
withont any variation. On ver. 36 we know nothing. See Zahn, p. 518. 


BdQos: ‘inexhaustible wealth.’ Cf. Prov. xviii. 3 BdOos raxav, 
troubles to which there is no bottom. The three genitives that 
follow are probably coordinate ; mAovrov means the wealth of the 
Divine grace, cf. x. 12; copias and yaceas are to be distinguished 
as meaning the former, a broad and comprehensive survey of things 

a3 


340 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ [XI 83-36. 


in their special relations, what we call Philosophy ; the latter an 
aoe penetrating perception of particular truths (see Lft. on 
ol. i. 9). 

dvefepedvnta: Prov. xxv. 3, Sym.; and perhaps Jer. xvii. 9, Sym. 
(Field, Hexapla, ii. 617), ‘unsearchable’; xpipara, not judicial de- 
cisions, but judgements on the ways and plans of life. Cf. Ecclus. 
XVii. 12 dcaOjxny aidvos €otnoev pet’ aitav, kai Ta Kpivata avrov iméderter 
avuTots. . 
dveftxviacrot: ‘that cannot be traced out,’ Eph. iii. 8; Job v. 9; 
ix. 10; xxxiv.24. This passage seems to have influenced 1 Clem. 
Rom. xx. 5 a8tcooy te aveEvyviacra .. . . cvvexeras mpooTdypaoww. 

84. tis yap yyw «7.4. This is taken from Is. xl. 13, varying 
only very slightly from the LXX. It is quoted also 1 Cor. ii. 16. 

35. 4 tis mpoddwxev alto, kal dvramodo0ycerat ato; taken from 
Jobxli. 11, but not the LXX, which reads (ver. 2) ris avruorqoeral pot at 
tropevet; The Hebrew (RV.) reads, ‘ Who hath first given unto me 
that I should repay him?’ It is interesting to notice that the only 
other quotation in St. Paul which varies very considerably from the 
LXX is also taken from the book of Job (1 Cor. iii. 19, cf. Job v. 13), 
see p. 302. This verse corresponds to 48d6os mAovrov. ‘So rich 
are the spiritual gifts of God, that none can make any return, and 
He needs no recompense for what He gives.’ 

36. God needs no recompense, for all things that are exist in 
Him, all things come to man through Him, and to Him all return. 
He is the source, the agent, and the final goal of all created things 
and all spiritual life. 

Many commentators have attempted to find in these words 
a reference to the work of the different persons of the Trinity (see 
esp. Liddon, who restates the argument in the most successful 
form). But (1) the prepositions do not suit this interpretation : 
$v atrod indeed expresses the attributes of the Son, but eis atréy 
can not naturally or even possibly be used of the Spirit. (2) The 
whole argument refers to a different line of thought. It is the 
relation of the Godhead as a whole to the universe and to created 
things. God (not necessarily the Father) is the source and inspirer 
and goal of all things. 


This fundamental assumption of the infinite character of the Divine 
wisdom was one which St. Paul would necessarily inherit from Judaism. 
It is expressed most clearly and definitely in writings produced immediately 
after the fall of Jerusalem, when the pious Jew who still preserved a belief 
in the Divine favour towards Israel could find no hope or solution of the 
problem but in a tenacious adherence to what he could hold only by faith. 
God’s ways are deeper and more wonderful than man could ever understand 
or fathom: only this was certain—that there was a Divine purpose of love 
towards Israel which would be shown in God’s own time. There are many 
resemblances to St. Paul, not only in thought but in expression. <AZoc. 
Baruch xiv. 8, 9 Sed quis, Dominator Domine, assequetur tudicium tuum? 
aut quis investigabit profundum viae tuae? aut quis supputabit gravitatem 


IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 341 


semitae tuae? aut quis poterit cogitare consilium tuum incomprehensibile$ 
aut quis unquam ex naits inveniet principium aut finem sapientiae tuae?... 
xx. 4 ef tunc ostendam tibi iudicium virtutis meae, et vias (in investigabiles 
...Xxi. 10 fu enim solus es vivens immortalis et [in investigabilis et 
numerum hominum nosté.. . liv. 12, 13 ecquis enim assimilabitur in mira- 
bilibus tuis, Deus, aut quis comprehendet cogitationem tuam profundam 
vitae? Quia tu consilio tuo gubernas omnes creaturas quas creavil dextera 
tua, et tu omnem fontem lucts apud te constituisti, et thesaurum sapientiae 
sublusthronum tuum pracparasti .. .\xxv guis assimilabitur, Domine, boni- 
tatt tuae? est enim incomprehensibilis. Aut quis scrutabitur miserationss 
tuas, quae sunt infinitae? aut quis comprehendet intelligentiam tuam? aut 
quis poterit consonare cogitationes mentis tuac? 4 Ezra v. 34 torguent me 
renes mei per omnem horam quaerentem apprehendere semitam Altissimi et 
investigare partem iudicii eius. et dixtt ad me Non potes... 40 et dixit ad 
me Quomodo non potes facere unum de his quae dicta sunt, sic non poteris 
inventre tudicium meum aut finem caritatis quam populo promisi? 


The Argument of Romans [X-X1. 


In the summary that has been given (pp. 269-275) of the various 
opinions which have been held concerning the theology of this 
section, and especially of ch. ix, it will have been noticed that 
almost all commentators, although they differed to an extraordinary 
degree in the teaching which they thought they had derived from 
the passage, agreed in this, that they assumed that St. Paul was 
primarily concerned with the questions that were exercising their 
own minds, as to the conditions under which grace is given to man, 
and the relation of the human life to the Divine will. Throughom 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a small number of com- 
mentators are distinguished from the general tendency by laying 
stress on the fact that both in the ninth and in the eleventh chapter, 
it is not the lot of the individual that is being considered, nor 
eternal salvation, but that the object of the Apostle is to explain 
the rejection of the Jews as a nation; that he is therefore dealing 
with nations, not individuals, and with admission to the Christian 
Church as representing the Messianic cornpia and not directly with 
the future state of mankind. This view is very ably represented by 
the English philosopher Locke; it is put forward in a treatise which 
has been already referred to by Beyschlag (p. 275) and forms the 
basis of the exposition of the Swiss commentator Oltramare, who 
puts the position very shortly when he says that St. Paul is speaking 
not of the scheme of election or of election in itself, but ‘ of God’s 
plan for the salvation of mankind, a plan which proceeded on the 
principle of election.’ 

It is true that commentators who have adopted this view (in 
particular Beyschlag) have pressed it too far, and have used it to 
explain or explain away passages to which it will not apply; but it 
undoubtedly represents the main lines of the Apostle’s argument 
and his purpose throughout these chapters. In order to estimate 


342 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1x-Xt. 


his point of view our starting-point must be the conclusion he 
arrives at. This, as expressed at the end of ch. xi, is that God 
wishes to show His mercy upon all alike ; that the world as a whole, 
the fulness of the Gentiles and all Israel, will come into the Messianic 
Kingdom and be saved; that the realization of this end is a mystery 
which has now been revealed, and that all this shows the greatness 
of the Divine wisdom ; a wisdom which is guiding all things to their 
final consummation by methods and in ways which we can only 
partially follow. 

The question at issue which leads St. Paul to assert the Divine 
purpose is the fact which at this time had become apparent ; Israel 
as a nation was rejected from the Christian Church. If faith in 
the Messiah was to be the condition of salvation, then the mass of 
the Jews were clearly excluded. The earlier stages of the argu- 
ment have ‘been sufficiently explained. St. Paul first proves (ix. 
6-29) that in this rejection God had been neither untrue to His 
promise nor unjust. He then proves (ix. 30-x. £3) that the Israelites 
were themselves guilty, for they had rejected the Messiah, although 
they had had full and complete knowledge of His message, and 
full warning. But yet there is a third aspect from which the 
rejection of Israel may be regarded—that of the Divine purpose. 
What has been the result of this rejection of Israel? It has led to 
the calling of the Gentiles,—this is an historical fact, and guided 
by it we can see somewhat further into the future. Here is 
a case where St. Paul can remember how different had been the 
result of his own failure from what he had expected. He can appeal 
to his own experience. There was a day, still vividly before his 
mind, when in the Pisidian Antioch, full of bitterness and a sense 
of defeat, he had uttered those memorable words ‘ from henceforth 
we will goto the Gentiles.’ This had seemed at the moment a con- 
fession that his work was not being accomplished. Now he can see 
the Divine purpose fulfilled in the creation of the great Gentile 
churches, and arguing from his own experience in this one case, 
where God's purpose has been signally vindicated, he looks 
forward into the future and believes that, by ways other than we 
can follow, God is working out that eternal purpose which is part 
of the revelation he has to announce, the reconciliation of the world 
to Himself in Christ. He concludes therefore with this ascription 
of praise to God for His wisdom and mercy, emphasizing the 
belief which is at once the conclusion and the logical basis of his 
argument. 


St. Paul’s Philosophy of History. 


The argument then of this section of the Epistle is not a dis- 
cussion of the principles on which grace is given to mankind, but 
a philosophy of History. In the short concluding doxology te 


IxX-XI_] MERCY TO ALL GOD'S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 343 


the Epistle—a conclusion which sums up the thought which 
underlies so much of the previous argument—St. Paul speaks of 
the mystery which has been kept silent in eternal times, but is 
now revealed, ‘the Counsel,’ as Dr. Hort (in Lft. Bzdkical Essays, 
Pp 325) expresses it, ‘of the far-seeing God, the Ruler of ages or 
periods, by which the mystery kept secret from ancient times is 
laid open in the Gospel for the knowledge and faith of all nations.’ 
So again in Eph. i. 4-11 he speaks of the foreknowledge and plan 
which God had before the foundation of the world; a plan which 
has now been revealed: the manifestation of His goodness to 
all the nations of the world. St. Paul therefore sees a plan or 
purpose in history ; in fact he has a philosophy of History. The 
characteristics of this theory we propose shortly to sum up. 

(1) From Rom. v. 12 ff. we gather that St. Paul divides history 
into three periods represented typically by Adam, Moses, Christ, 
excluding the period before the Fall, which may be taken to typify 
an ideal rather than to describe an actual historical period. Of these 
the first period represents a state not of innocence but of ignorance. 
‘Until the Law, i. e. from Adam to Moses, sin was in the world; 
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.’ It is a period which 
might be represented to us by the most degraded savage tribes. 
If sin represents failure to attain an ideal, they are sinful; but if 
sin represents guilt, they cannot be condemned, or at any rate only 
to a very slight degree and extent. Now if God deals with 
men in such a condition, how does He do so? The answer is, by 
the Revelation of Law; in the case of the Jewish people, by 
the Revelation of the Mosaic Law. Now this revelation of Law, 
with the accompanying and implied idea of judgement, has 
fulfilled certain functions. It has in the first place convicted man 
of sin; it has shown him the inadequacy of his life and conduct. 
‘For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt 
not lust.’ It has taught him the difference between right and 
wrong, and made him feel the desire for a higher life. And so, 
secondly, it has been the schoolmaster leading men to Christ. It 
has been the method by which mankind has been disciplined, by 
which they have been gradually prepared and educated. And 
thirdly, Law has taught men their weakness. The ideal is there; 
the desire to attain it is there; a struggle to attain it begins, and 
that struggle convinces us of our own weakness and of the power of 
sin over us. We not only learn a need for higher ideals; we learn 
also the need we have for a more powerful helper. This is the 
discipline of Law, and it prepares the way for the higher and 
fuller revelation of the Gospel. 

These three stages are represented for us typically, and most 
clearly in the history of the Jewish dispensation. Even here of 
course there is an element of imexactness in them. There was 


344 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS x-XL 


a knowledge of right and wrong before Moses, there was an 
increase in knowledge after him ; but yet the stages do definitely 
exist. And they may be found also running through the whole of 
history ; they are not confined to the Jewish people. The stage of 
primitive ignorance is one through which presumably every race 
of men has passed; some in fact have not yet passed beyond it: 
but there has been progress upwards, and the great principle 
which has accompanied and made possible that progress is Law. 
The idea of Law in St. Paul is clearly not exhausted in the Jewish 
law, although that of course is the highest example of it. All 
peoples have been under law in some form. It is a great holy 
beneficent principle, but yet it is one which may become a burden. 
It is represented by the law of the conscience; it is witnessed by 
the moral judgements which men have in all ages passed on one 
another ; itis embodied in codes and ordinances and bodies of law ; 
it is that in fact which distinguishes for men the difference between 
right and wrong. The principle has worked, or is working, 
among mankind everywhere, and is meant to be the preparation of, 
as it creates the need for, the highest revelation, that of the Gospel. 

(2) These three stages represent the first point in St. Paul’s 
scheme of history. A second point is the idea of Election or 
Selection, or rather that of the ‘ Purpose of God which worketh 
by Selection.’ God did not will to redeem mankind ‘ by a nod’ 
as He might have done, for that, as Athanasius puts it, would be to 
undo the work of creation; but He accepts the human conditions 
which He has created and uses them that the world may work out 
its own salvation. So, as St. Paul feels, He has selected Israel to 
be His chosen people; they have become the depositary of Divine 
truth and revelation, that through them, when the fulness of time 
has come, the world may receive Divine knowledge. This is clearly 
the conception underlying St. Paul’s teaching, and looking back from 
the vantage ground of History we can see how true it is. To use 
modern phraseology, an ‘ethical monotheism’ has been taught the 
world through the Jewish race and through it alone. And St. Paul’s 
principle may be extended further. He himself speaks of the ‘ fulness 
of time,’ and it is no unreal philosophy to believe that the purpose 
of God has shown itself in selecting other nations also for excel- 
lence in other directions, in art, in commerce, in science, in states- 
manship; that the Roman Empire was built up in order to 
create a sphere in which the message of the Incarnation might 
work; that the same purpose has guided the Church in the 
centuries which have followed. An historian like Renan would 
tell us that the freer development of the Christian Church was only 
made possible by the fall of Jerusalem and the divorce from 
Judaism. History tells us how the Arian persecutions occasioned 
the conversion of the Goths, and how the division of the Church 


IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 345 


at the schism of East and West, or at the time of the Reformation, 
occasioned new victories for Christianity. Again and again an event 
which to contemporaries must have seemed disastrous has worked 
out beneficially ; and so, guided by St. Paul’s example, we learn to 
trust in that Divine wisdom and mercy which in some cases where 
we can follow its track has been so deeply and unexpectedly 
vindicated, and which is by hypothesis infinite in power and 
wisdom and knowledge. 

(3) These then are two main points in St. Paul’s teaching; first, | 
the idea of gradual progress upwards implied in the stages of Adam, | 
Moses, Christ; secondly, the idea of a purpose running through 
history, a purpose working by means of Selection. But to what | 
euGi The end is looked at under a twofold aspect; it is the | 
completion of the Messianic Kingdom, and the exhibition of the | 
Divine mercy. In describing the completion of the Messianic | 
Kingdom, St. Paul uses, as in all his eschatological passages, the 
forms and phrases of the Apocalyptic literature of his time, but 
reasons have been given for thinking that he interpreted them, at 
any rate to a certain extent, in a spiritual manner. There is per- 
haps a further difficulty, or at any rate it may be argued that St. Paul 
is mistaken as regards the Jews, in that he clearly expected that at 
some time not very remote they would return to the Messianic King- 
dom; yet nothing has yet happened which makes this expectation 
any more probable. We may argue in reply that so far as there 
was any mistaken expectation, it was of the nearness of the last times, 
and that the definite limit fixed by St. Paul, ‘until the fulness of the 
Gentiles come in,’ has not yet been reached. But it is better to 
go deeper, and to ask whether it is not the case that the rejection 
of the Jews now as then fulfils a purpose in the Divine plan? 
The well-known answer to the question, ‘ What is the chief argu- 
ment for Christianity ?’—‘ the Jews ’—reminds us of the continued 
existence of that strange race, living as sojourners among men, 
the ever-present witnesses to a remote past which is connected by 
our beliefs intimately with the present. By their traditions to 
which they cling, by the O. T. Scriptures which they preserve by 
an independent chain of evidence, by their hopes, and by their 
highest aspirations, they are a living witness to the truth of that 
which they reject. They have their purpose still to fulfil in the 
Divine plan. 

St. Paul’s final explanation of the purpose of God—the exhi- 
bition of the Divine mercy—suggests the solution of another class 
of questions. In all such speculations there is indeed a difficulty, 
—the constant sense of the limitations of human language as 
applied to what is Divine; and St. Paul wishes us to feel these 
limitations, for again and again he uses such expressions as 
‘I speak as a man.’ But yet granting this, the thought does 


_—_ 


346 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [1x-xX1. 


supply a solution of many problems. Why does God allow sin? 
Why does He shut up men under sin? It is that ultimately He 
may exhibit the depths of His Divine mercy. We may feel that 
some such scheme of the course of history as was sketched out 
above explains for us much that is difficult, but yet we always 
come back to an initial question, Why does God allow such a state 
of affairs to exist? We may grant that it comes from the free-will 
of man; but if God be almighty He must have created man with 
that free-will. We may speak of His limitation of His own powers, 
and of His Redemption of man without violating the conditions of 
human life and nature; but if He be almighty, it is quite clear 
that He could have prevented all sin and misery by a single act. 
What answer can we make? We can only say, as St. Paul does, 
that it is that He may reveal the Divine mercy; if man had not been 
created so as to need this mercy, we should never have known the 
Love of God as revealed in His Son. That is the farthest that 
our speculations may legitimately go. 

(4) But one final question. What evidence does St. Paul give 

\ for a belief in the Divine purpose in history? It is twofold. On 

| the one hand, within the limited circle of our own knowledge or 
experience, we can see that things have unexpectedly and wonder- 
fully worked out so as to indicate a purpose. That was St. Paul’s 
experience in the preaching to the Gentiles. Where we have more 
perfect knowledge and can see the end, there we see God’s purpose 
working. And on the other hand our hypothesis is a God of 
infinite power and wisdom. If we have faith in this intellectual 
conception, we believe that, where we cannot understand, our failure 
arises from the limitations not of God’s power and will, but of our 
own intelligence. 

An illustration may serve to bring this home. We can read 
in such Jewish books as 4 Ezra or the Apocalypse of Baruch the 
bewilderment and confusion of mind of a pious Jew at the fall 
of Jerusalem. Every hope and aspiration that he had seems 
shattered. But looked at from the point of view of Christianity, 
and the wider development of Christianity, that was an inevitable 
and a necessary step in the progress of the Church. If we believe 
in a Divine purpose in history, we can see it working here quite 
clearly. Yet to many a contemporary the event must have been 
inexplicable. We can apply the argument to our time. In the 
past, where we can trace the course of events, we have evidence of 
the working of a Divine purpose, and so in the present, where so 
much is obscure and dark, we can believe that there is still a Divine 
purpose working, and that all the failures and misfortunes and 
rebuffs of the time are yet steps towards a higher end. Z# dixit 
ad me: Initio terrent orbis et antequam starent exitus saecult..., et 
antequam investigarentur praesentes anni, et antegquam abalienarentur 


IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 347 


corum qui nune peccant adinveniiones et consignats essent qui fide 
thesaurtzaverunt: tune cogitavt et facta sunt per me solum et non 
per alium, ut et finis per me et non per alium (4 Ezra vi. 1-6). 


The Salvation of the Individual. Free-will and 
Predestination. 


While the ‘ Nationalist’ interpretation of these chapters has been 
adopted, it has at the same time been pointed out that, although it 
correctly represents St. Paul’s line of argument, it cannot be legiti- 
mately used as it has been to evade certain difficulties which have 


been always felt as to his language. St. Paul’s main line of argu- | 


ment applies to nations and peoples, but it is quite clear that the 
language of ix. 19-23 applies and is intended to apply equally to 
individuals. Further it is impossible to say, as Beyschlag does, that 
there is no idea in the Apostle’s mind of a purpose before time. It 
is God’s purpose ‘before the foundation of the world’ which is 
being expounded. And again, it is quite true to say that the 
election is primarily an election to privilege; yet there is a very 
intimate connexion between privilege and eternal salvation, and 
the language of ix. 22, 23 ‘fitted unto destruction, ‘ prepared unto 


glory,’ cannot be limited to a merely earthly destiny. Two ques- | 


tions then still remain to be answered. What theory is implied 
in St. Paul’s language concerning the hope and future of individuals 
whether Christian or unbelievers, and what theory is implied as to 
the relation between Divine foreknowledge and human free-will? 
We have deliberately used the expression ‘what theory is 
implied?’; for St. Paul never formally discusses either of these 
questions ; he never gives a definite answer to either, and on both 
he makes statements which appear inconsistent. Future salvation 
is definitely connected with privilege, and the two are often 
looked at as effect and cause. ‘If while we were enemies we 
were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much 
more being reconciled shall we be saved by His life’ (v. 10). 
‘Whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, 
them He also glorified’ (viii. 30). But, although the assurance of 
hope is given by the Divine call, it is not irrevocable. ‘By their 
unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be 
not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural 
branches, neither will He spare thee’ (xi. 20, 21). Nor again is 
future salvation to be confined to those who possess external 
privileges. The statement is laid down, in quite an unqualified 
way, that ‘glory and honour and peace’ come ‘to everyone that 
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek’ (ii. 10). 
Again, there is no definite and unqualified statement either in 


348 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IxX-X1. 


support of or against universalism; on the one side we have 
statements such as those in a later Epistle (x Tim. ii. 4) ‘God our 
Saviour, who willeth that ali men should be saved and come to the 
knowledge of the truth’; or again, ‘He has shut allup to disobedience, 
but that He might have mercy upon all’ (Rom. xi. 32). On the 
other side there is a strong assertion of ‘ wrath in the day of wrath 
and revelation of the righteous judgement of God, who will render 
to every man according to his works; ... unto them that are fac- 
tious and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and 
indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that 
worketh evil’ (ii. 5-9). St. Paul asserts both the goodness and the 
severity of God. He does not attempt to reconcile them, nor need 
we. He lays down very clearly and definitely the fact of the Divine 
judgement, and he brings out prominently three characteristics of it: 
that it is in accordance with works, or perhaps more correctly on 
the basis of works, that is of a man’s whole life and career; that it 
will be exercised by a Judge of absolute impartiality, there is no 
respect of persons; and that it is in accordance with the oppor- 
tunities which a man has enjoyed. For the rest we must leave the 
solution, as he would have done, to that wisdom and knowledge 
and mercy of God of which he speaks at the close of the eleventh 
chapter. 

There is an equal inconsistency in St. Paul’s language regarding 
Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Ch. ix implies argu- 
ments which take away Free-will; ch. x is meaningless without the 
presupposition of Free-will. And such apparent inconsistency of 
language and ideas pervades all St. Paul’s Epistles. ‘ Work out your 
own salvation, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do 
of His good pleasure’ (Phil. ii. 12,13). Contrast again ‘God gave 
them up unto a reprobate mind,’ and ‘wherefore thou art without 
excuse’ (Rom. i. 18; ii. 1). Now two explanations of this language 
are possible. It may be held (as does Fritzsche, see p. 275) that 
St. Paul is unconscious of the inconsistency, and that it arises 
from his inferiority in logic and philosophy, or (as Meyer) that he 
is in the habit of isolating one point of view, and looking at the 
question from that point of view alone. This latter view is correct ; 
or rather, for reasons which will be given below, it can be held and 
stated more strongly. The antinomy, if we may call it so, of 
chaps. ix and x is one which is and must be the characteristic 
of all religious thought and experience. 

(1) That St. Paul recognized the contradiction, and held it 
consciously, may be taken as proved by the fact that his view 
was shared by that sect of the Jews among whom he had been 
brought up, and was taught in those schools in which he had 
been instructed. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees attributed 
everything to Fate and God, but that yet the choice of right and 


IX-XI.] MERCY TO ALL GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSE 349 


wrong lay with men (®apicaia . .. eipappévn te cai Ge mpoodntovas 
mavra kat To pev mpatrew Ta Sika, Kal pn, KaTa Td TAEloTOY emt Tois 
avOparos KeicOa, Bonbciv d€ cis Exactov Kai thy eivappermy B. J. II. 
viii. 14; comp. Ané. XIII. v. 9 ; XVIII. i. 3): and so in Prrgé Aboth, 
ili. 24 (p. 73 ed. Taylor) ‘Everything is foreseen; and free-will 
is given: and the world is judged by grace; and everything is 
according to work.’ (See also Ps. Sol. ix. 7 and the note on 
Free-will in Ryle and James’ edition, p. 96, to which all the above 
references are due.) St. Paul then was only expanding and giving 
greater meaning to the doctrine in which he had been brought up. 
He had inherited it but he deepened it. He was more deeply con- 
scious of the mercy of God in calling him; he felt more deeply the 
certainty of the Divine protection and guidance. And yet the 
sense of personal responsibility was in an equal degree intensified. 
‘But I press forward, if so be I may apprehend, seeing that also 
I was apprehended by Christ’ (Phil. iii. 12). 

(2) Nor again is any other solution consistent with the reality 
of religious belief. Religion, at any rate a religion based on 
morality, demands two things. To satisfy our intellectual belief 
the God whom we believe in must be Almighty, i.e. omnipotent 
and omniscient; in order that our moral life may be real our Will 
must be free. But these beliefs are not in themselves consistent. 
If God be Almighty He must have created us with full knowledge 
of what we should become, and the responsibility therefore for 
what we are can hardly rest with ourselves. If, on the other hand, 
our Will is free, there is a department where God (if we judge the 
Divine mind on the analogy of human minds) cannot have created 
us with full knowledge. We are reduced therefore to an apparently 
irreconcilable contradiction, and that remains the language of all 
deeply religious minds. We are free, we are responsible for what we 
do, but yet it is God that worketh all things. This antithesis is 
brought out very plainly by Thomas Aquinas. God he asserts is 
the cause of everything (Deus causa est omnibus operantibus ut 
operentur, Cont. Gent. III. Ixvii), but the Divine providence does 
not exclude Free-will. The argument is interesting: Adhuc pro- 
videntia est multiplicativa bonorum in rebus gubernatis. Illud ergo 
per quod multa bona subtraherentur a rebus, non pertinet ad pro- 
videntiam. St autem libertas voluntatis tolleretur, multa bona sub- 
traherentur. Tolleretur enim laus virtutis humanae, quae nulla est 
st homo libere non agtt, tolleretur enim tushitia praemiantis et puntentts, 
st non libere homo ageret bonum et malum, cessaret etiam circum- 
specito in constlits, quae de his quae in necessitate aguniur, frustra 
tractarentur, esset igitur contra providentiae rationem st subtraheretur 
voluniais libertas (2b. \xxiii). And he sums up the whole relation 
of God to natural causes, elsewhere showing how this same 
principle applies to the human will: patet efiam quod non sic idem 


350 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [Ix-x1. 


effectus causae natural et divinae virtutt attributtur, quast partim 
a Deo, partim a naturali agenti fiat, sed totus ab utrogue secundum 
alium modum, stcut idem effectus totus altributtur instrumento, et 
principali agentt etiam totus (2b. \xx). See also Summa Theologiae, 
Pars Prima, cv. art. 5; Prima Secundae, cxiii). 


This is substantially also the view taken by Mozley, Om the Augustinian 
Doctrine of Predestination. The result of his argument is summed up as 
follows, pp. 326, 327: ‘Upon this abstract idea, then, of the Divine Power, as 
an unlimited power, rose up the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination and 
good; while upon the abstract idea of Free-will, as an unlimited faculty, 
rose up the Pelagian theory. Had men perceived, indeed, more clearly and 
really than they have done, their ignorance as human creatures, and the 
relation in which the human reason stands to the great truths involved in 
this question, they might have saved themselves the trouble of this whole 
controversy. They would have seen that this question cannot be determined 
absolutely, one way or another; that it lies between two great contradictory 
truths, neither of which can be set aside, or made to give way to the other; 
two opposing tendencies of thought, inherent in the human mind, which go 
on side by side, and are able to be held and maintained together, although 
thus opposite to each other, because they are only incipient, and not final 
and complete truths ;—the great truths, I mean, of the Divine Power on the 
one side, and man’s Free-will, or his originality as an agent, on the other. 
And this is in fact, the mode in which this question is settled by the practical 
common-sense of mankind... . The plain natural reason of mankind is thus 
always large and comprehensive ; not afraid of inconsistency, but admitting 
all truth which presents itself to its notice. It is only when minds begin to 
philosophize that they grow narrow,—that there begins to be felt the appeal 
to consistency, and with it the temptation to exclude truths,” 


(3) We can but state the two sides; we cannot solve the problem. 
But yet there is one conception in which the solution lies. It is in 
a complete realization of what we mean by asserting that God is 
Almighty. The two ideas of Free-will and the Divine sovereignty 
cannot be reconciled in our own mind, but that does not prevent 
them from being reconcilable in God’s mind. We are really 
measuring Him by our own intellectual standard if we think 
otherwise. And so our solution of the problem of Free-will, and 
of the problems of history and of individual salvation, must finally 
lie in the full acceptance and realization of what is implied by the 
infinity and the omniscience of God. 


THE NEW LIFE#. 


XII. 1, 2. With this wonderful programme of salvation 
before you offer to God a sacrifice, not of slaughtered beasts, 
but of your living selves, your own bodies, pure and free 
Srom blemish, your spiritual service. Do not take pattern 


XII. 1] THE NEW LIFE 351 


by the age in which you live, but undergo complete moral 
reformation with the will of God for your standard. 


XII-XV. 12. We now reach the concluding portion of the 
Epistle, that devoted to the practical application of the previous 
discussion. An equally marked division between the theoretical 
and the practical portion is found in the Epistle to the Ephesians 
(chap. iv); and one similar, although not so strongly marked, in 
Galatians (v. 1 or 2); Colossians (iii. 1); 1 Thessalonians (iv. 1) ; 
2 Thessalonians (iii. 6). A comparison with the Epistles of St. 
Peter and St. John will show how special a characteristic of St. 
Paul is this method of construction. The main idea running 
through the whole section seems to be that of peace and unity for 
the Church in all relations both internal and external. As St. Paul 
in the earlier portion of the Epistle, looking back on the controversies 
through which he has passed, solves the problems which had been 
presented in the interests no longer of victory, but of peace, so in 
his practical exhortation he lays the foundation of unity and 
harmony on deep and broad principles. A definite division may 
be made between chaps. xii, xiii, in which the exhortations are 
general in character, and xiv—xv. 12, in which they arise directly 
out of the controversies which are disturbing the Church. Yet 
even these are treated from a general point of view, and not in 
relation to any special circumstances. In the first section, the 
Apostle does not appear to follow any definite logical order, but 
touches on each subject as it suggests itself or is suggested by the 
previous ideas ; it may be roughly divided as follows: (1) a general 
introduction on the character of the Christian life (xii. 1, 2); (ii) 
the right use of spiritual gifts especially in relation to Church 
order (3-8); (iii) a series of maxims mainly illustrating the great 
principle of dyam (9-21); (iv) duties towards rulers and those in 
authority (xiii. 1-7) ; (v) a special exhortation to dydzy, as including 
all other commandments (8-10) ; (vi) an exhortation to a spiritual 
life on the ground of the near approach of the rapoveia (11-14). 


Tertullian quotes the following verses of this chapter from Marcion: 9, Ioa, 
12, 14b, 16b, 17a, 18, 19. There is no evidence that any portion was 
omitted, but ver. 18 may have stood after ver. 19, and in the latter yéypanrat 
is naturally cut off and a ydp inserted. The other variations noted by Zahn 
seem less certain (Zahn, Geschichte des N. T. Kanoms, p. 518; Tert. adv. 
Mare. v. 14). 


1. mwapaxaho ody. A regular formula in St. Paul: Eph. iv. 1; 
1 Tim. ii. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 16. As in the passage in the Ephesians, 
the ody refers not so much to what immediately precedes as to the 
result of the whole previous argument. ‘As you are justified by 
Christ, and put in a new relation to God, I exhort you to live in 
accordance with that relation.’ But although St. Paul is giving the 


352 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 1 


practical results of his whole previous argument, yet (as often with 


him, cf. xi. rr) the words,are directly led up to by the conclusion. 


of the previous chapter and the narration of the wisdom and 
mercy of God. 

1d tay oiktippdv Tod Oeod. Cf. 2 Cor. i, 3 6 marip rav olkrippav. 
Oixripuds in the singular only occurs once (Col. iii. 12); the plural 
is a Hebraism directly derived from the LXX (Ps. exviii. 156 of 
oixtippot gov moAXol, Kupte, opédpa). There is a reference to the 
preceding chapter, ‘As God has been so abundantly merciful to 
both Jews and Greeks, offer a sacrifice to Him, and let that sacrifice 
be one that befits His holiness.’ 

Tapactijcat: a tech. term (although not in the O.T.) for presenting 
a sacrifice: cf. Jos. Ant. IV. vi. 4 Bopots te éxchevoev era deipacbat 
tov BaciXéa, Kat TocovTous Tavpous Kai Kotovs mapacrava. The word 
means to ‘ place beside,’ ‘ present’ for any purpose, and so is used 
of the presentation of Christ in the temple (Luke ii. 22), of St. 
Paul presenting his converts (Col. i. 28), or Christ presenting 
His Church (Eph. v. 27), or of the Christian’ himself (cf. Rom. 
vi. 13 ff.). In all these instances the idea of ‘ offering’ (which 
is one part of sacrifice) is present. 

74 cdpata buav. To be taken literally, like ra péAn dyer in vi. 13, 
as is shown by the contrast with rot vods in ver. 2. ‘ Just as the 
sacrifice in all ancient religions must be clean and without blemish, 
so we must offer bodies to God which are holy and free from the 
stains of passion.’ Christianity does not condemn the body, but 
demands that the body shall be purified and be united with Christ. 
Our members are to be émAa dixaorivns TH Oe@ (vi. 13); Our bodies 
(ra cmpara) are to be péAn Xpiorod (1 Cor. vi. 15); they are the 
temple of the Holy Spirit (2d. ver. 19); we are to be pure both in 
body and in spirit (2d. vii. 34). 

There is some doubt as to the order of the words evdépecroy To Ced. 
They occur in this order in N® BD EF GL and later MSS., Syrr. Boh. Sah., 
and Fathers; 74 @c@ ev. in NAP, Vulg. The former is the more usual 
expression, but St. Paul may have written 7@ @e@ ev. to prevent ambiguity, 
for if TG @eG comes at the end of the sentence there is some doubt as to 
whether it should not be taken with wapaorjoa. 


Ouciay Lacav: cf. vi. 13 mapacticate éavtois Ta Ge@, @oel éx vEKpov 
(avras. The bodies presented will be those of men to whom new- 
ness of life has been given by union with the risen Christ. The 
relation to the Jewish rite is partly one of distinction, partly of 
analogy. The Jewish sacrifice implies slaughter, the Christian 
continued activity and life; but as in the Jewish rite all ritual 
requirements must be fulfilled to make the sacrifice acceptable to 
God, so in the Christian sacrifice our bodies must be holy, without 
spot or blemish. 

dyiay, ‘ pure,’ ‘holy,’ ‘ free from stain,’ 1 Pet. i 16; Lev. xix. a. 


XII. 1, 2.] THE NEW LIFE 353 


So the offering of the Gentiles (Rom, xv. 16) is jy:acpévn év Ty, “Ay. 
(See on i. 7.) 

eddpeotoy tT Ge@: cf. Phil. iv. 18 deEduevos mapa Exadppodirov 7a 
Tap Upar, dopny evodtas, Ouciay Sexrqv, evapeotov TS Cem: Rom. xiv. 18; 
‘Well-pleasing to God.’ The formal sacrifices of the old covenant 
might not be acceptable to God: cf. Ps. li. 16, 17 

Thy Noy} Aatpetav Gudv. Acc. in apposition to the idea of the 
sentence. Winer, § lix. 9, p. 669, E. T.: cf. 1 Tim. ii. 6 and the 
note on viii. 3 above. A service to God such as befits the reason 
(Adyos), i.e. a spiritual sacrifice and not the offering of an irrational 
animal: cf. x Pet. ii. 5. The writer of Zest. XJI. Pat. Levi 3 
seems to combine a reminiscence of this passage with Phil. iv. 18: 
speaking of the angels, he says mpoodéepovor dé Kupio dopyy edwdias 
AoyiKny Kat avaipaktov mpocopay, 

We may notice the metaphorical use St. Paul makes of sacrificial 
language: emt tm Ovoia kai devrovpyia tHs mictews vpov Phil. ii. 17 ; 
éop7 evodias (Lev. i. 9) Phil. iv. 18; donq 2 Cor. ii. 14, 163 de- 
Toupyds, tepoupyoivta, tpoopopd Rom, xv. 16. This language passed 
gradually and almost imperceptibly into liturgical use, and hence 
acquired new shades of meaning (see esp, Lightfoot, Clement, i. 
p- 386 sq.). 

There is a preponderance of evidence in favour of the imperatives (avax7- 
pariCedbe, peTapoppovode) in this verse, BL P all the versions (Latt. Boh. 

Syrr.), and most Fathers, against AD F G (XN varies). The evidence of the 


Versions and of the Fathers, some of whom paraphrase, is particularly 
important, as it removes the suspicion of itacism. 


2. cvoxnpatileobe ... petapoppodabe, ‘Do not adopt the external 
and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your 
inmost nature.’ On the distinction of cxjpya and poppy preserved in 
these compounds see Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred 
Philology, vol. iti. 1857, p. 114, Philippians, p. 125. Comp. Chrys. 
ad loc., ‘He says not change the fashion, but de /ransformed, to 
show that the world’s ways are a fashion, but virtue’s not a fash- 
ion, but a kind of real form, with a natural beauty of its own, 
not needing the trickeries and fashions of outward things, which 
no sooner appear than they go to naught. For all these things, 
even before they come to light, are dissolving. If then thou 
throwest the fashion aside, thou wilt speedily come to the form.’ 

7@_aidv. to’tw, ‘this world,’ ‘this life,’ used in a moral sense. 
When the idea of a future Messianic age became a part of the 
Jewish Theology, Time, xpévos, was looked upon as divided into 
a succession of ages, aidves, periods or cycles of great but limited 
duration; and the present age was contrasted with the age to 
come, or the age of the Messiah (cf. Schtirer, § 29. 9), a contrast 
very common among early Christians: Matt. xii. 32 ovre ev rovro 


T aid ovre €v TH peddovs: Luc. XX. 34, 35 oF viol rod ai@vos TovTov 
! 


354 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XII. 2. 


oo of 8€ xarakiwbévres Tod aldvos éxeivov tuxeiv: Eph. i. a1 ob pdvow é 
TO aidv TovT@ GAG Kat €v TS péAdovts. So Enoch xvi. 1 péxpts Hpepas 
Tehemoews THs Kpicews THs peyadAns, ev 7 6 aidy 6 peyas TeAcoOnoerat. 
As the distinction between the present period and the future was 
one between that which is transitory and that which is eternal, 
between the imperfect and the perfect, between that in which of 
&pxovres Tod aldvos robrov (1 Cor. ii. 6) have power and that in which 
6 Baottels trav alovev (Enoch xii. 3) will rule, aiay like xécpos in 
St, John’s writings, came to have a moral significance: Gal. i. 4 é 
Tov ai@vos Tod éveat@ros movnpod: Eph. ii. 2 mepeemarqoare xara ov 
aiéva Tod Kéopou Tovrov: and so in this passage. 

From the idea of a succession of ages (cf. Eph. ii. 7 € rots aléox 
Tois enepxopévors) Came the expression els rovs alavas (xi. 36), or 
aiévas Tév ai®vev to express eternity, as an alternative for the older 
form eis rév aiava. The latter, which is the ordinary and original 
O. T. form, arises (like aiémos) from the older and original meaning 
of the Hebrew ‘é/am, ‘the hidden time,’ ‘futurity,’ and contains 
rather the idea of an unending period. 

Ti évakatvécet tod vods: our bodies are to be pure and free from 
all the stains of passion; our ‘mind’ and ‘intellect’ are to be no 
longer enslaved by our fleshly nature, but renewed and purified by 
the gift of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Tit. iii. 5 da Aovrpod madeyyerecias 
kal dvakawooews Lvevparos ‘Ayiov: 2 Cor. iv. 16: Col. iii. ro. On 
the relation of dvaxaivacts, ‘ renewal,’ to madvyyeveoia see Trench, Syn. 
§ 18. By this renewal the intellectual or rational principle will no 
longer be a vots capxés (Col. ii. 18), but will be filled with the 
Spirit and coincident with the highest part of human nature 
(1 Cur. ii. 15, 16). 

Soxipdfew: cf. ii. 18; Phil. i. ro. The result of this purification 
is to make the intellect, which is the seat of moral judgement, true 
and exact in judging on spiritual and moral questions. 

76 O€Anpa tod Ccod, x.7.X., ‘That which is in accordance with 
God’s will.” This is further defined by the three adjectives which 
follow. It includes all that is implied in moral principle, in the 
religious aim, and the ideal perfection which is the goal of life. 


THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 


XII. 3-8. Let every Christian be content with his proper 
place and functions. The society to which we belong is 
a single body with many members all related one to another. 
Hence the prophet should not strain after effects for which 
his faith is insufficient; the minister, the teacher, the 
exhorter, should each be intent on his special duty. The 


XII. 3-5.] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 355 


almsgiver, the person in authority, the doer of kindness, 
should each cultivate a spirit appropriate to what he does. 


8. St. Paul begins by an instance in which the need of an 
enlightened mind is most necessary; namely, the proper bearing 
of a Christian in the community, and the right use of spiritual gifts. 

Sud THs xdptTos K.T.A. gives emphasis by an appeal to Apostolic 
authority (cf. i. 5). It is not merely a question of the spiritual 
progress of the individual, for when St. Paul is speaking of that he 
uses exhortation (ver. 1), but of the discipline and order of the 
community; this is a subject which demands the exercise of 
authority as well as of admonition. 

mwavtt T@ Gym. An emphatic appeal to every member of the 
Christian community, for every one (éxéor») has some spiritual 
gift. 

p) Grepdpovetv, ‘not to be high-minded above what one ought 
to be minded, but to direct one’s mind to sobriety.’ Notice the 
play on words trepppoveiv. . . ppoveiv. . . dpoveiv... cwhpovetv. The 
poveiv cis to cwppoveiv would be the fruit of the enlightened intellect 
as opposed to the dpdvnua tis capxés (viii. 6). 

éxdotw is after euépoe, NOt in apposition to wavri rH Sv, and its 
prominent position gives the idea of diversity; for the order, cp. 
1 Cor. vii. 17. ‘According to the measure of faith which God has 
given each man.’ The wise and prudent man will remember that 
his position in the community is dependent not on any merit of his 
own, but on the measure of his faith, and that faith is the gift of 
God. Faith ‘being the sign and measure of the Christian life’ is 
used here for all those gifts which are given to man with or as the 
result of his faith. ‘Two points are emphasized, the diversity éxacr@ 
- - - pérpoy, and the fact that this diversity depends upon God: cf. 
1 Cor. vii, 7 GAN éxacros idiov Exes xdpiocpa ek Ceod, 6 pev ovtas, 6 dé 
ovTas. 

4, 5. Modesty and sobriety and good judgement are necessary 
because of the character of the community: it is an organism or 
corporate body in which each person has his own duty to perform 
for the well-being of the whole and therefore of himself. 

This comparison of a social organism to a body was very 
common among ancient writers, and is used again and again by 
St. Paul to illustrate the character of the Christian community: see 
1 Cor. xii. 12; Eph. iv. 15; Col. i. 18. The use here is based 
upon that in 1 Cor. xii. 2-31. In the Epistles of the Captivity it 
is another side of the idea that is expounded, the unity of the 
Church in Christ as its head. 

5. 7d Sé kal’ ets. An idiomatic expression found in later Greek. 
Cf. Mark xiv. 19 «fs caf eis: John viii. 9: 3 Macc. v. 34 6 af ets 
8€ ray Gidov: Lucian Soloecisia 9; Eus. H. E£. X. iv, &c. is xa? 


Aas 


356 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [-x1I. 5, 6. 


els was probably formed on the model of év xa6’ &, and then raf 
els came to be treated adverbially and written as one word: hence 
it could be used, as here, with a neuter article. 

6-13. Exovres 5é xapiocpara, «7.4. These words may be taken 
grammatically either (1) as agreeing with the subject of écpev, 
a comma being put at pwéAn, or (2) as the beginning of a new 
sentence and forming the subject of a series of verbs supplied with 
the various sentences that follow; this is decidedly preferable, for in 
the previous sentence the comparison is grammatically finished, and 
€xovres S€ suggests the beginning of a new sentence. 

Two methods of construction are also possible for the words 
kata THY dvadoyiav Ths Tictews... ev TH Staxovia, &c, Either they must 
he taken as dependent on éyovres, or a verb must be supplied with 
each and the sentences become exhortations. (1) If the first con- 
struction be taken the passage will run, ‘So are we all one body in 
Christ, but individually members one of another, having gifts which 
are different according to the grace which is given us, whether we 
have prophecy according to the proportion of faith, or a function 
of ministry in matters of ministration, or whether a man is a teacher 
in the exercise of functions of teaching, or one who exhorteth in 
exhortation, one who giveth with singleness of purpose, one who 
zealously provides, one who showeth mercy cheerfully.’ (2) Accord- 
ing to the second interpretation we must translate ‘having gifts 
which vary according to the grace given us,—be it prophecy let us 
use it in proportion to the faith given us, be it ministry let us use it 
in ministry,’ &c. 

That the latter (which is that of Mey. Go. Va. Gif.) is preferable 
is shown by the difficulty of keeping up the former interpretation 
to the end; few commentators have the hardihood to carry it 
on as far as ver. 8; nor is it really easier in ver. 7, where the 
additions év rj Siaxovia are very otiose if they merely qualify €xovres 
understood. In spite therefore of the somewhat harsh ellipse, the 
second construction must be adopted throughout. 

6. Kata Thy dvahoyiov tis mictews (sc. mpopyredoper), The 
meaning of miorews here is suggested by that in ver. 3. A man’s 
gifts depend upon the measure of faith allotted to him by God, 
and so he must use and exercise these gifts in proportion to the 
faith that isin him, If he be compa and his mind is enlightened 
by the Holy Spirit, he will judge rightly his capacity and power ; if 
on the other hand, his mind be carnal, he will try to distinguish 
himself vain-gloriously and disturb the peace of the community. 

Liddon, with most of the Latin Fathers and many later com- 
mentators, takes rictews objectively: ‘The majestic proportion of 
the (objective) Faith is before him, and, keeping his eye on it, he 
avoids private crotchets and wild fanaticisms, which exaggerate 
the relative importance of particular truths to the neglect of others.’ 


XII. 6-8.] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 357 


But this interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning he has 
himself given to mors in ver. 3, and gives a sense to dvadoyiav 
which it will not bear; the difficulty being concealed by the ambi- 
guity of the word ‘proportion’ in English. 

7. Siaxoviay, ‘if we have the gift of ministry, let us use it in 
ministering to the community, and not attempt ambitiously to 
prophesy or exhort.’ d:axovia was used either generally of all 
Christian ministrations (so Rom. xi. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 5; Eph, iv. 
12, &c.) or specially of the administration of alms and attendance 
to bodily wants (1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. viii. 4, &c.). Here the 
Opposition to mpodyreia, d:dacKxadia, mapdkhyots seems to demand the 
more confined sense. 

6 Si8dcKwv. St. Paul here substitutes a personal phrase because 
éxewv iSacKkad‘ay would mean, not to impart, but to receive instruction. 

8. 6 petadiSous: the man who gives alms of his own substance 
is to do it in singleness of purpose and not with mixed motives, 
with the thought of ostentation or reward. With 6 perad.dovs, the 
man who gives of his own, while 6 dsadidovs is the man who dis- 
tributes other persons’ gifts, comp. Zest. XII. Pair. Iss. 7 mavri 
avOpore ddvvopev@ cuveotevaéa, Kal MT@X@ peTedwKa Tov GpTov pov. 

dm\étns. The meaning of this word is illustrated best by Zest. 
ALI. Pair. Issachar, or mepi dmAdrntos. Issachar is represented as 
the husbandman, who lived simply and honestly on his land. ‘And 
my father blessed me, seeing that I walk in simplicity (dm)érys). 
And I was not inquisitive in my actions, nor wicked and envious 
towards my neighbour. I did not speak evil of any one, nor attack 
a man’s life, but I walked with a single eye (év dmAdrntt 6Oahpar). 
. . » To every poor and every afflicted man I provided the good 
things of the earth, in simplicity (dm\érns) of heart. . . . The simple 
man (6 dmovs) doth not desire gold, doth not ravish his neighbour, 
doth not care for all kinds of dainty meats, doth not wish for 
diversity of clothing, doth not promise himself (ody tmroypdder) length 
of days, he receiveth only the will of God . . . he walketh in up- 
rightness of life, and beholdeth all things in simplicity (dm)édrnrt),’ 
Issachar is the honourable, hardworking, straightforward farmer; 
open-handed and open-hearted, giving out of compassion and in 
singleness of purpose, not from ambition, 

The word is used by St. Paul alone in the N. T., and was 
specially suited to describe the generous unselfish character of 
Christian almsgiving; and hence occurs in one or two places 
almost with the signification of liberality, 2 Cor. ix. 11, 13; just as 
‘liberality’ in English has come to have a secondary meaning, and 
dixaioovvn in Hellenistic Greek (Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 
p- 4y)- Such specialization is particularly natural in the East, 
where large-hearted generosity is a popular virtue, and where such 
words as ‘ gnod’ may be used simply to mean munificent. 


358 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIT. 8. 


& mpoiotdwevos, the man that presides, or governs in any position, 
whether ecclesiastical or other. The word is used of ecclesiastical 
officials, 1 Thess. v.12; 1 Tim. v.17; Just. Mart. Aol. i. 67; and 
of a man ruling his family (1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12), and need not be 
any further defined. Zeal and energy are the natural gifts required 
of any ruler. 

6 é\eGv. ‘Let any man or woman who performs deeds of mercy 
in the church, do so brightly and cheerfully.” The value of bright- 
ness in performing acts of kindness has become proverbial, Ecclus. 
XXXli. (XXXV.) II ev macy ddce iAdpwcor 7d rpdcwndy gov: Prov. xxii. 8 
Gv8pa idapiv kai ddrnv edidAoyei 6 cds (quoted 2 Cor. ix. 7); but just as 
singleminded sincerity became an eminently Christian virtue, so 
cheerfulness in all the paths of life, a cheerfulness which springs 
from a warm heart, and a pure conscience and a serene mind set 
on something above this world, was a special characteristic of the 
early Christian (Acts ii. 46; v. 41; Phil. i. 4, 18; ii, 18, &c.; 
t Thess. v. 16). 


Spiritual Gifts. 


The word xdpicpa (which is almost purely Pauline) is used of 
those special endowments which come to every Christian as the 
result of God’s free favour (xdpis) to men and of the consequent 
gift of faith, In Rom. v. 15, vi. 13, indeed, it has a wider signifi- 
cation, meaning the free gift on the part of God to man of forgive- 
ness of sins and eternal life, but elsewhere it appears always to be 
used for those personal endowments which are the gifts of the 
Spirit. In this connexion it is not confined to special or con- 
spicuous endowments or to special offices. There are, indeed, 
Ta xapiopara Ta peifova (1 Cor. xii. 31), which are those apparently 
most beneficial to the community; but in the same Epistle the word 
is also used of the individual fitness for the married or the un- 
married state (1 Cor. vii. 7); and in Rom. i. 13 it is used of the 
spiritual advantage which an Apostle might confer on the com- 
munity. So again, xapicyara include miraculous powers, but no 
distinction is made between them and non-miraculous gifts. In 
the passage before us there is the same combination of very 
widely differing gifts; the Apostle gives specimens (if we may 
express it so) of various Christian endowments; it is probable 
that some of them were generally if not always the function of 
persons specially set apart for the purpose (although not perhaps 
necessarily holding ecclesiastical office), others would not be con- 
fined to any one office, and many might be possessed by the same 
person. St.Paul’s meaning is: By natural endowments, strengthened 
with the gifts of the Spirit, you have various powers and capacities: 
in the use of these it is above all necessary for the good of the 


XII. 8-8.] THE RIGHT USE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 359 


community that you should show a wise and prudent judgement, 
not attempting offices or work for which you are not fitted, nor 
marring your gifts by exercising them in a wrong spirit. 

This being the meaning of xapicuara and St. Paul’s purpose in 
this chapter, interpretations of it, as of the similar passage (chap. 
xii) in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which have attempted 
to connect spiritual gifts more closely with the Christian ministry 
are unfounded. These are of two characters. One, that of 
Neander, maintains that in the original Church there were no 
ecclesiastical officers at all but only xapicpara, and that as spiritual 
gifts died out, regularly appointed officers took the place of those 
who possessed them. The other finds, or attempts to find, an 
ecclesiastical office for each gift of the Spirit mentioned in this 
chapter and the parallel passage of the Corinthians, or at any rate 
argues that there must have been mpo¢jra, d:ddcxcaro &c., existing 
as church officers in the Corinthian and Roman communities. 
Neither of these is a correct deduction from the passages under 
consideration. In dealing with the xapicyara St. Paul is discussing 
a series of questions only partially connected with the Christian 
ministry. Every church officer would, we may presume, be con- 
sidered to have xapicuara which would fit him for the fulfilment of 
such an office; but most, if not all, Christians would also have xapic- 
para, The two questions therefore are on different planes which 
partially intersect, and deductions from these chapters made in 
any direction as to the form of the Christian organization are 
invalid, although they show the spiritual endowments which those 
prominent in the community could possess. 

A comparison of the two passages, 1 Cor. xii.and Rom. xii. 3-8, 
is interesting on other grounds. St. Paul in the Corinthian Epistle 
is dealing with a definite series of difficulties arising from the 
special endowments and irregularities of that church. He treats 
the whole subject very fully, and, as was necessary, condemns 
definite disorders. In the Roman Epistle he is evidently writing 
with the former Epistle in his mind: he uses the same simile: he 
concludes equally with a list of forms of xapicpara—shorter, indeed, 
but representative; but there is no sign of that directness which 
would arise from ‘dealing with special circumstances. The letter is 
written with the experience of Corinth fresh in the writer’s mind, 
but without any immediate purpose. He is laying down directions 
based on his experience; but instead of a number of different 
details, he sums up all that he has to say in one general moral 
principle: Prudence and self-restraint in proportion to the gift of 
faith. Just as the doctrinal portions of the Epistle are written with 
the memory of past controversies still fresh, discussing and laying 
down in a broad spimt positions which had been gained in the 
course of those controversies, so we shall find that in the practical 


360 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 9. 


portion St. Paul is laying down broad and statesmanlike positions 
which are the result of past experience and deal with circumstances 
which may arise in any community. 


MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 


XII. 9-21. The general principles of your life should be 
a love which ts perfectly sincere, depth of moral feeling, 
consideration for others, zeal, fervour, devoutness, hopefulness, 
fortitude under persecutions, prayerfulness, eagerness to help 
your fellow-Christians by sharing what you possess with 
them and by the ready exercise of hospitality. 

Bless, do not curse, your persecutors. Sympathize with 
others. Be united in feeling, not ambitious but modest in 
your aims. Be not self-opinionated or revengeful. Do 
nothing to offend the world. Leave vengeance to God. 
Good for evil is the best requital. 


9. i dydrny, cf. xiii. 8. The Apostle comes back from direc- 
tions which only apply to individuals to the general direction to 
Christian Charity, which will solve all previous difficulties. Euthym.- 
Zig. dddoKev yap mas dv ra elpnpeva xatopbwlein, ennyaye THY wnTépa 
mdvrav TouTav, Aéyo On THY eis GAAnrovs aydmnv. The sequence of 
ideas is exactly similar to that in 1 Cor. xii, xiii, and obviously 
suggested by it. In the section that follows (9-21), dydmn is the 
tuling thought, but the Apostle does not allow himself to be con- 
fined and pours forth directions as to the moral and spiritual life 
which crowd into his mind. 

Gvumékpitos. Wisd. v. 18; xviii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 6 (dydm); 
1 Tim.i. 5 and 2 Tim. i. 5 (riots); Jas. iii. 17 (7 avwOev codia) ; 
1 Pet. i. 22 (piAadeAgia). It is significant that the word is not 
used in profane writers except once in the adverbial form, and 
that by Marcus Aurelius (viii. 5). 

Girootuyobvtes: SC. éore as éorw above, and cf. 1 Pet. ii. 18; iii. 1. 
An alternative construction is to suppose an anacoluthon, as if 
aydnare avuroxpirws had been read above; cf. 2 Cor. i. 7. The 
word expresses a strong feeling of horror; the amo- by farther 
émiphasizing the idea of separation gives an intensive force, which 
is heightened by contrast with ccdX@pevor, 

76 Tovypov ... TO dya0. The characteristic of true genuine 
‘love is to attach oneself to the good in a man, while detesting the 
evil in him. There cannot be love for what is evil, but whoever 
‘has love in him can see the good that there is in all. 


XII.10,11.] MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 361 


10. 7H $iAadehdia, ‘love of the brethren’; as contrasted with 
dydmm, which is universal, PAadeApia represents affection for the 
brethren; that is, for all members of the Christian community, 
cf. 2 Pet. i. 7. Euthym.-Zig. ddeApoi éore xara thy aitny da Tov 
Banricparos avayevynow kal ba ToiTo dvdykny Exere HrradeAdias. 

$tAdoropyor: the proper term for strong family affection. Euthym.- 
Zig. rouréort Gcppas xui Siazipws didodvres. enizacis yap didias 7 
atopy, Kat Tis oTopyyis mavtas avénats 9 pidooropyia. 

TH Tey K.t.A.: cf. Phil. ii. 3 ‘in lowliness of mind each account- 
ing other better than himself.’ The condition and the result of 
true affection are that no one seeks his own honour or position, and 
every one is willing to give honour to others. The word mponyou- 
pevot is somewhat difficult; naturally it would mean ‘ going before,’ 
‘preceding,’ and so it has been translated, (1) ‘in matters of honour 
preventing one another,’ being the first to show honour: so Vulg. 
invicem praevententes; or (2) ‘leading the way in honourable 
actions’: ‘Love makes a man lead others by the example of 
showing respect to worth or saintliness,’ Liddon; or (3) ‘surpass- 
ing one another’: ‘There is nothing which makes friends so 
much, as the earnest endeavour to overcome one’s neighbour in 
honouring him,’ Chrys. 

But all these translations are somewhat forced, and are difficult, 
because mporycio@a in this sense never takes the accusative. It is, 
in fact, as admissible to give the word a meaning which it has not 
elsewhere, as a construction which is unparalleled. A comparison 
therefore of 1 Thess. v. 13; Phil. ii. 3 suggests that St. Paul is 
using the word in the quite possible, although otherwise unknown, 
sense Of jyovpevor imepéxyovras. So apparently RV. (=AV.) ‘in 
honour preferring one another,’ and Vaughan. 

ll. TH omoudy pi) Sxvnpot, ‘in zeal not flagging’; the words 
being used in a spiritual sense, as is shown by the following clauses. 
Zeal in all our Christian duties will be the natural result of our 
Christian love, and will in time foster it. On éxompés cf. Matt. xxv. 
26: it is a word common in the LXX of Proverbs (vi. 6, &c.). 

7@ mvedpate Léovres: cf. Acts xviii. 25, ‘fervent in spirit’; that is 
the human spirit instinct with and inspired by the Divine Spirit. 
The spiritual life is the source of the Christian’s love: ‘ And all 
things will be easy from the Spirit and the love, while thou ari 
made to glow from both sides,’ Chrys. 

7@ Kupiw Souhevovtes. The source of Christian zeal is spiritual 
life, the regulating principle our service to Christ. It is not 
neces>ary to find any very subtle connexion of thought between 
these clauses, they came forth eagerly and irregularly from St. 
Paul’s mind. Kvpi@ may have been suggested by mvevpars, just as 
below é:axew in one sense suggests the same word in another 
sense. 


362 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII 11-18. 


There is a very considerable balance of authority in favour of «upip 
(NABELP &c., Vulg. Syrr. Boh., Gr. Fathers) as against xapa (DFG, 
Latin Fathers). Cf. Jer. Zp. 27 ad Marcellam: tli “gant spe gaudentes, 
tempori servientes, nos legamus domino servientes. Orig.-lat. ad loe. scto 
autem in nonnullis Latinorum exemplis haberi tempori servientes: guod 
non mtht videtur convenienter insertum. The corruption may have arisen 
from K® «p@ being confused together, a confusion which would be easier 
from reminiscences of such expressions as Eph. v. 16 éfayopa(opevar rév 


katpér. 


12. rH édmiSt xalpovres. See above on ver. 8. The Christian 
hope is the cause of that Christian joy and cheerfulness of dis- 
position which is the grace of Christian love: cf. x Cor. xiii. 7 
‘Love . . . hopeth all things.’ 

TH OAtper Sropévovtes. Endurance in persecution is naturally 
connected with the Christian’s hope: cf. x Cor. xiii. 7 ‘Love... 
endureth all things.’ 

It is interesting to notice how strongly, even thus early, persecu- 
tion as a characteristic of the Christian’s life in the world had 
impressed itself on St. Paul’s phraseology: see 1 Thess. i. 6; iii. 
3, 7; 2 Thess. i. 4,6; 2 Cor. i. 4, &c.; Rom. v. 33 viii. 35. 

TH Mpoceuxy Tpookaptepodvres: Acts. i. 14; ii. 42; Col. iv. 2. 
Persecution again naturally suggests prayer, for the strength of 
prayer is specially needed in times of persecution. 

13. tats xpelats Tay aytwv Kowwvodvtes. This verse contains two 
special applications of the principle of love—sharing one’s goods 
with fellow-Christians in need, and exercising that hospitality 
which was part of the bond which knit together the Christian com- 
munity. With xowereiv in this sense cf. Phil. iv. 15; Rom. xv. 26; 
2 Cor. ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16. 


The variation rats pyeiats (D F G, MSS. known to Theod. Mops., Vulg. 
cod. (am), Eus. Hist. Mart. Pal., ed. Cureton, p. 1, Hil. Ambrstr. Aug.) is 
interesting. In the translation of Origen we read: Usibus sanctoruam com- 
municantes. Memini in latinis exemplaribus magis haberi: memoriis 
sanctorum communicantes: verum nos nec consuetudinem turbamus, mec 
verttati praeiudicamus, maxime cum utrumque conveniat aedificationt. 
Nam usibus sanctorum honeste et decenter, non quast stipem indigentibus 
pracbere, sed censum nostrorum cum ipsis quodammodo habere communem, et 
meminisse sanctorum sive in collectis solemnibus, sive pro ¢o, ut ex recorda- 
tione corum proficiamus, aplum et conveniens videtur. The variation must 
have arisen at a time when the ‘holy’ were no longer the members of the 
community and fellow-Christians, whose bodily wants required relieving, 
but the ‘saints’ of the past, whose lives were commemorated. But this 
custom arose as early as the middle of the second century: cf. Mart. 
Polyc. xviii év0a ws Suvariy Hyiv cvvayopévos év dyadddoe Kal xapG wapéfer 
6 Kupuos émredciv tiv Tod paptupiov avtod *yepay yeveOAuov, Ets TE THY TOY 
mponOAnkdray pyjpny Kal Tav peddAdvtayv doxnoly Te kal éroipaciay; and the 
variations may, like other peculiarities of the western text, easily have arisen 
so soon. We cannot however lay any stress on the passage of Origen, as it 
is probably due to Rufinus. See Bingham, Am#t, xiii.9. 5. WH. suggest 
that it was a clerical error arising from the confusion of yp and mn @ 
a badly written papyrus MS. 


XII. 18-16.] MAXIMS TO GUIDE ¥HE CHRISTIAN LIFE 363 


$thofeviavy. From the very beginning hospitality was recognized 
as one of the most important of Christian duties (Heb. xiii. 2 
1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i.8; 1 Pet. iv. 9; compare also Clem. Rom. §1 
Td peyadompenes THs Pidogevias ipiv 760s: § 10 of Abraham &a zicre 
ai didogeviay cd66n atta vids év ynpa: § 1x dia Gidogeviay Kat edogSerav 
Aar éoa6n: § 12 dia siotw Kai dirofeviav ean ‘PaaS h top § 35). 
On its significance in the early Church see Ramsay, Zhe Church 
in the Roman Empire, pp. 288, 368. The Christians looked upon 
themselves as a body of men scattered throughout the world, living 
as aliens amongst strange people, and therefore bound together 
as the members of a body, as the brethren of one family. The 
practical realization of this idea would demand that whenever a 
Christian went from one place to another he should find a home 
among the Christians in each town he visited. We have a picture 
of this intercommunion in the letters of Ignatius; we can learn it 
at an earlier period from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 
(2 Cor. iii. 1; viii. 18, 23, 24). One necessary part of such inter- 
communion would be the constant carrying out of the duties 
of hospitality. It was the unity and strength which this inter- 
course gave that formed one of the great forces which supported 
Christianity. 

14. eddoyetre tobs Sidkovras. The use of the word d&Hxew in one 
sense seems to have suggested its use in another. The resem- 
blance to Matt. v. 44 is very close: ‘But I say unto you, Love 
your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.’ Emphasis 
is added by the repetition of the maxim in a negative form. Cf 
James iii. 9. 

15. xatpew perd xatpévrav x.t.A. On the infinitive cf. Winer, 
§ xliii. 5 d, p. 397, E. T. But it seems more forcible and less 
awkward to take it, as in Phil. iii. 16, as the infinitive used for 
the emphatic imperative than to suppose a change of construc- 
tion. ‘But that requires more of a high Christian temper, to 
rejoice with them that do rejoice, than to weep with them that 
weep. For this nature itself fulfils perfectly: and there is none 
so hardhearted as not to weep over him that is in calamity: but 
the other requires a very noble soul, so as not only to keep from 
envying, but even to feel pleasure with the person who is in - 
esteem. And this is why we placed it first. For there is nothing 
that ties love so firmly as sharing both joy and pain one with 
another,’ Chrys. ad Joc. - Cf. Ecclus. vii. 34. 

16. 16 ato . . . ppovodvres, ‘ being harmonious in your relations 
towards one another’: cf. xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. ii. 2; iv. 2. 
The great hindrance to this would be having too high an estima- 
tion of oneself: hence the Apostle goes on to condemn such 
pride. 

pr Ta GinAa dpovodvres. cf. xl. 20; 1 Cor. xiii. g ‘Love vaunteth 


364 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XII. 16-19, 


not itself, is not puffed up,’ shows how St. Paul is still carrying out 
the leading idea of the passage. 

Tols Tametwois: prob. neuter; ‘allow yourself to be carried along 
with, give yourself over to, humble tasks:’ ‘consentinge to meke 
thingis,’ Wic. The verb cuvardyew means in the active ‘to lead 
along with one,’ hence in the passive, ‘to be carried away with,’ as 
by a flood which sweeps everything along-with it (Lightfoot on 
Gal. ii. 13; cf. 2 Pet. iii. 17), and hence ‘to give oneself up to.’ 

The neuter seems best to suit the contrast with ra tWyAa and 
the meaning of the verb; but elsewhere in the N. T. razewds is 
always masculine, and so many take it here: ‘make yourselves 
equall to them of the lower sorte, Tyn. Cov. Genev. ‘Con- 
sentinge to the humble,’ Rhen. So Chrys.: ‘That is, bring thyself 
down to their humble condition, ride or walk with them; do not be 
humbled in mind only, but help them also, and stretch forth thy 
hand to them,’ 

pe) yiveoOe dpdvipor wap’ Eavrots: taken apparently from Prov. iii. 
7 wn to ppdvipos mapa oeavrd. Cf. Origen non potest veram sapten- 
tiam Det scire, qui suam stultitiam quasi sapientiam colit. 

17. pydevt Kaxdv dvti kaxod doSi8dvres. Another result of the 
principle of love. Mat. v. 43, 44; 1 Thess. v.15; 1 Pet. iii. 9; 
1 Cor. xiii. 5, 6 ‘Love... taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth 
not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth.’ 

Tpovoovpmevot Kaa evaitmov tavtwv avOpdmwv: cf. Prov. iii. 4; 
2 Cor. iv. 2; viii. 21. ‘As nothing causes offence so much as 
offending men’s prejudices, see that your conduct will commend 
itself as honourable to men.’ Euthym.-Zig. od mpés emidekw adda 
mpos OiSackadiav, Kat Sore pydevi Sovvac mpépacw oxavdadrov, This 
seems better than to lay all the emphasis on the mdvrey, as some 
would do. 

18. ei Suvardy, ‘if it be possible, live peaceably with all men, at 
any rate as far as concerns your part (ro e€ tuar).’ Over what others 
will do you can have no control, and if they break the peace it is 
not your fault. ‘Love seeketh not its own’ (1 Cor. xiii. 5). 

19. d&yamytot. Added because of the difficulty of the precept not 
to avenge oneself. 

Sére témov tH Spyy, ‘give room or place to the wrath of God’ 
Let God’s wrath punish. Euthym.-Zig. adda rapayxapeire ris éxdixn= 
cews TH dpyy Tov Qeov, TH Kpices Tod Kupiov. The meaning of ddre 
rorov is shown by Eph. iv. 27 pydé didore rorov rd Sia8dr@, do not 
give scope or place to the devil; 7 épyj means the wrath of God: 
cf. Rom. v. 9. That this is the right interpretation of the word is 
shown by the quotation which follows. 

But other interpretations have been often held: ddre rérop is 
translated by some, ‘allow space, interpose delay,’ i.e. check and 
restrain your wrath; by others, ‘yield to the anger of your 


XII. 19-21.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 365 


opponent’: neither of these interpretations suits the context or 
the Greek, 

yéyparmrat yép. The quotation which follows comes from Deut. 
XXxii. 35, and resembles the Hebrew ‘ Vengeance is mine and 
recompense, rather than the LXX év nuépa exdixyocws avtarodace : 
and the Targum of Onkelos more than either. The words are 
quoted in the same form in Heb. x. 30. 

20. Gd "Edy Treva 6 €xOpds cou x.t.k. Taken from the LXX; cf. 
Prov. xxv. 21, 22, agreeing exactly with the text of B, but varying 
somewhat from that of AN. The term dv@paxes trupds clearly means 
‘terrible pangs or pains,’ cf. Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 11 (LXX) ; 4 (5) Ezra 
xvi. 54 lVon dicat peccator se non peccasse, quoniam carbones ignis 
comburet super caput etus gui dicit: Non peccavi coram domino et 
gloria tpsius. But with what purpose are we to ‘heap coals of fire 
on his head’? Is it (1) that we may be consoled for our kind act 
by knowing that he will be punished for his misdeeds? This is 
impossible, for it attributes a malicious motive, which is quite 
inconsistent with the context both here and in the O. T. In the 
latter the passage proceeds, ‘ And the Lord shall reward thee,’ im- 
plying that the deed is a good one; here we are immediately told 
that we are not to be ‘overcome of evil, but overcome evil with 
good,’ which clearly implies that we are to do what is for our 
enemies’ benefit. (2) Coals of fire must, therefore, mean, as most 
commentators since Augustine have said, ‘the burning pangs of 
shame,’ which a man will feel when good is returned for evil, and 
which may produce remorse and penitence and contrition. 
Potest enim fiert ut animus ferus ac barbarus inimict, si sentiat 
beneficium nostrum, st humanitatem, st affectum, si pietalem videat, 
compunctionem cordis capiat, commisst poenitudinem gerat, et ex hoc 
wgnis 1m €0 quidem succendalur, qui eum pro commisst conscientia 
torqueat et adurat: et tsi erunt carbones ignis, gut super caput etus 
ex nostro misericordiae et pietatis opere congregantur, Origen. 

21. pi) vikG bmd Tod Kakod x.7.A., ‘do not allow yourself to be 
overcome by the evil done to you and be led on to revenge and 
injury, but conquer your enemies’ evil spirit by your own good 
disposition.” A remark which applies to the passage just con- 
cluded and shows St. Paul’s object, but is also of more general 
application. 


ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS. 


XIII. 1-7. The civil power has Divine sanction. Its 
Junctions are to promote well-being, to punish not the good 
but the wicked. Hence it must be obeyed. Obedience to it ts 
@ Christian duty and deprives it of all its terrors. 


366 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII.2 


Se toc you pay tribute because the machinery of govern- 
ment ts God's ordinance. In this as in all things give to all 
their due. 


XIIL The Apostle now passes from the duties of the individual 
Christian towards mankind in general to his duties in one definite 
sphere, namely towards the civil rulers.) While we adhere to what 
has been said about the absence of a clearly-defined system or 
purpose in these chapters, we may notice that one main thread of 
thought which runs through them is the promotion of peace in all 
Hie telatoba of life. The idea of the chil power iiap ieee 
suggested by ver. 19 of the preceding chapter, as being one of the 
ministers of the Divine wrath and retributionXver. 4): at any rate 
the_juxtaposition of the two passages would-serve to remind St. 
Paul’s readers that the condemnation of individual vengeance and 
retaliation does not apply to the action of the state in enforcing 
law ; for the state is God’s minister, and it is the just wrath of God 
which is acting through it. 

We have evidence of the use of vv. 8-10 by Marcion (Tert. adv. Mare. 

v. 14) Merito ttague totam creatoris disciplinam principali praecepto eius 

conclustt, Diliges proximum tanquam te. Hoc legis supplementum st ex ipsa 

lege est, quis set deus legis tam ignovo. On the rest of the chapter we have 
no information. 

1. méca oxy: cf. ii. 9g. The Hebraism suggests prominently 
the idea of individuality. These rules apply to all however privi- 
leged, and the question is treated from the point of view of indi- 
vidual duty. 

€fouciats: abstract for concrete, ‘those in authority’; cf. Luke 
xii. 11; Tit. iii, 1. Smepexovcats ‘who are in an eminent position,’ 
defining more precisely the idea of ééovcias: cf. 1 Pet. ii, 133 
Wisdom vi. 5. 

étotaccéo8w. Notice the repetition of words of similar sound, 
tnoraccéoOw . . . TeTaypevat. . . avritagadpuevos . « . Starayy, and cf 
> he 

od yap Eotw éfoucia «.t.A. The Apostle gives the reason for 
this obedience, stating it first generally and positively, then nega- 
tively and distributively. No human authority can exist except as* 
the gift of God and springing from Him and therefore all consti- 
tuted powers are ordained by Him\ The maxim is common in all 
Hebrew literature, but is almost always introduced to show how 
the Divine power is greater than that of all earthly sovereigns. or 
to declare the obligation of rulers as responsible for all they do to 
One above them. isdom Vi. I, 3 dxovcare obv, Bacideis, kal obvere, 
piBere Sixacral mepdrav yis . . . dr edd mapa tod Kupiov 4 xpdrnors 
tiv kai 4 duvaoreia mapa inpicrov: Enoch xlvi. 5 ‘And he will put 
down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms, because they do 


‘a 
i 


XIII. 1-4.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 307 


not extol and praise him, nor thankfully acknowledge whence the 
kingdom was bestowed upon them’: Jos. Bell. Jud. Il. viii. 7 +6 mores 
mapeler naar, padiota 8€ Tots Kpatouciy" ov yap Sixa Gcov repryiverOai 
tw 7 Gpxew. St. Paul adopts the maxim for a purpose similar to 
that in which it is used in the last instance, that it is the duty of 
subjects to obey their rulers, because they are appointed and 
ordained by God. 
The preponderance of authority (SABLP and many later MSS., Bas. 
Chrys.) is decisive for «i 7 iwd @eod. The Western reading dad Oecd was 
a correction for the less usual expression (DEF G and many later MSS., 


Orig. Jo. .-Damasc.). The reading of the end of the verse should be ai Be 
ovcat imd Ocod Tetaypeva cictv NABDFG, 


2. Gore $ dvtitacodpevos x.t.h. The logical result of this 
theory as to the origin of human power is that resistance to it 
is Tesistance to the or ordering of God ; and hence those who resist will 
receive xpiza—a judgement or condemnation which is human, for it 
comes through human instruments, but Divine as having its origin 
and source in God. There is no reference here to eternal punish- 
ment. 


3. ot yap Gpxovtes. The plural the Apostle is 
speaking qui is arguing out the duty of obeying 
rulers on general principles, deduce Tom the fact that ‘ the state’ 


exists for a beneficent end; he is not arguing from the special 
condition or circumstances of any one state. The social organism, 
as a modern writer might say, is a power on the side of good. 

T@ Gyale épyw: cf. ii. 7 Trois pev caf imopovny Epyov dyabot. In 
oth passages é€pyov is used collectively; there it means the sum 
of a man’s actions, here the collective work of the state. For the 
subject cf. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2: we are to pray ‘for kings and all in 
authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godli- 
ness and honesty.’ 

The singular 7@ dya0o Epyw dAAd 7H Kakd is read by SA BDF GP, Boh. 
Vulg. (domi operis sed malt), Clem.-Alex. Iren-lat. Tert. Orig-lat. Jo.- 
Damasc. Later MSS. with EL, Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Thdrt. read trav dyabav 
épyov . . . xakav. Hort suggests an emendation of Patrick Young, 7@ 


ayaSoépyy, which has some support apparently from the Aeth. et guz P facil 
bonum: but the antithesis with «ax@ makes this correction improbable. 





Ghats 82 . . . €Eouciav; The construction is more pointed if these 
words are made a question. 

As the state exists for a good end, if you lead a peaceable life 
you will have nothing to fear from the civil power. 

4. Geo yap SidKxovds éorr. Fem. to agree with efoveta, which 
throughout is almost personified. oo, ‘for thee,’ ethical, for thy 
advantage. eis 74 dyaQdy, ‘ for the good,’ to promote good, existing 
for a good end. 

Thy pdxatpav. The sword is the symbol of the executive and 
criminal jurisdiction of a magistrate, and is therefore used of the 


368 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ = [XIII 4-7. 


power of punishing inherent in the government. So Ulpian, 
Digest, i. 18. 6.§ 8; Tac. Hist. iii. 68 ; Dio Cassius, xii. 27. 

Exdixos eis dpyyv, ‘inflicting punishment or vengeance so as to 
exhibit wrath,’ namely the Divine wrath as administered by the 
ruler who is God’s agent (cf. ver. 2 and xii. 1g). The repetition of 
the phrase cod duixovos with both sides of the sentence emphasizes 
the double purpose of the state. It exists positively for the well- 
being of the community, negatively to check evil by the infliction 
of punishment, and both these functions are derived from God. 

&. 86: rulers, because as God’s ministers they have a Divine 
order and purpose, are to be obeyed, not only because they have 
power over men, but also because it is right, da ryv cuveidgow (cf. 
ii. 15, ix. 1). 

6. 81a todto ydp Kal, sc. da tiv cvveidnow: ‘and it is for this 
reason also. St. Paul is appealing to a principle which his readers 
will recognize. “It is apparently an admitted rule of the Christian 
communities that taxes are to be paid, and he points out that the 
principle is thus recognized of the moral duty of obeying rulers. 
That he could thus appeal to a recognized practice seems to imply 
that the words of our Lord (Luke xx. 20-25) had moulded the 
habits of the early Church, and this suggestion is corroborated by 
ver. 7 (see the longer note below). 

Aettoupyot, ‘God’s ministers.’ Although the word is used in 
a purely secular sense of a servant, whether of an individual or of 
a community (1 Kings x. 5; Ecclus. x. 2), yet the very definite 
meaning which Aecroupyés Geod had acquired (Ecclus vii. 36; Heb. 
viii. 2; see especially the note on Rom. xv. 16) adds emphasis to 
St. Paul’s expression. 

mpockaptepourtes Must apparently be taken absolutely (as in 
Xen. Hell. VII. v. 14), ‘ persevering faithfully in their office, and 
eis adté todto gives the purpose of the office, the same as that 
ascribed above to the state. These words cannot be taken im- 
mediately with mpocxaprepovvres, for that verb, as in Xil. 13, seems 
always to govern the dative. 

7. St. Paul concludes this subject and leads on to the next by 
a general maxim which covers all the different points touched 
upon : ‘ Pay each one his due.’ 

70 Tov ddpov, SC. drarodytt. gépos is the tribute paid by a subject 
nation (Luke xx. 22; 1 Macc. x. 33), while réAos represents the 
customs and dues which would in any case be paid for the support 
of the civil government (Matt. xvii. 25; 1 Mace. x. 31). 

$<Bos is the respectful awe which is felt for one who has power 
in his hands; rj honour and reverence paid to a ruler: ef. x Pet. 
iil. 17 Tov Gedy oBeioe’ Tov Bacwea Timare. 

A strange interpretation of this verse may be seen in the 
Gnostic book entitled Hisris Sofia, p. 294, ed. Schwartze. 


XIII. 1-7.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 369 


The Church and the Civil Power. 


The motive which impelled St. Paul to write this section of the 
Epistle has (like so many other questions) been discussed at great 
length with the object of throwing light on the composition of the 
Roman Church. If the opinion w ‘hich has been propounded already 
in reference to these chapters 2 correct, it will be obvious that 
here as elsewhere St. Paul i iting ily at any rate, wi 
a-view to the state af the Church as_a whole, not to the particulan— 


circumstances of the Roman community: it being recognized at 
the_same_time_that questions which agitated the whole Christian 
world_would be likely to be reflected in what was already an 
import ity. Whether this opinion be correct 
or not must depend partly, of course, on our estimate of the (i) 
Epistle as a whole; but if it be assumed to be so, the character of 
this passage will amply support itd There is a complete absence of 
any reference to particular circumstances: the language is through- 
cut general: there is a studied avoidance of any special terms; 
direct commands such as might arise from particular circumstances 
are not given: but general principles applicable to any period or 
place are laid down. As elsewhere in this Epistle, St. Paul, 
influenced by his past experiences, or by the questions which were 
being agitated around him, or by the fear of difficulties which he 
foresaw as likely to arise, lays down broad general principles, 
applying to the affairs of life the spirit of Christianity as he has 
elucidated it. 

But what were the questions that were in the air when he wrote? 
There can be no doubt that primarily they would be those 
current in the Jewish nation concerning the lawfulness_of paying 
taxes and otherwise recognizing the authority ‘of a foreign ruler. 
When our Lord was asked, ‘Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar 
or no?’ (Matt. xxii. 18 f.; Luke xx. 22 f.), a burning question 
was at once raised. Starting from the express command ‘ thou 
mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother’ 
(Deut. xvii. 15), and from the idea of a Divine theocracy, a large 
section of the Jews had refused to recognize or pay taxes to the 
Roman government. Judas the Gaulonite, who said that ‘the 
census was nothing else but downright slavery’ (Jos. Ané. XVIII. 
i. 1), or Theudas (ibid. XX. v. 1), or Eleazar, who is represented 
as saying that ‘we have long since made up our minds not to 
serve the Romans or any other man but God alone’ (Bell. Jud. 
VII. viii. 6), may all serve as instances of a tendency which was 
very wide spread. Nor was this spirit confined to the Jews of 
Palestine ; elsewhere, both in Rome and in Alexandria, riots had 
occurred. Nor again was it unlikely that Christianity would be 





370 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS = ‘[XTIT. 1-7. 


affected by it. A good deal of the phraseology of the early 
Christians was derived from the Messianic prophecies of the 
O. T., and these were always liable to be taken in that 
purely material sense which our Lord had condemned. The fact 
that St. Luke records the question of the disciples, ‘Lord, dost 
thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts i. 6) seems 
to imply that such ideas were current, and the incident at Thessalo- 
nica, where St. Paul himself, because he preached the ‘ kingdom,’ 
was accused of preaching ‘another king, one Jesus,’ shows how 
liable even he was to misinterpretation. These instances are quite 
sufficient to explain how the question was a real one when St. 
Paul wrote, and why it had occupied his thoughts. It is not 
necessary to refer it either to Ebionite dualistic views (so Baur), 
which would involve an anachronism, or to exaggerated Gentile 
ideas of Christian liberty; we have no record that these were ever 
perverted in this direction. 

Two considerations may have specially influenced St. Paul to 
discuss the subject in his Epistle to the Romans. rst was 
the known fact of the turbulence of the Roman Jews; a fact whi 
fore him_by his intercourse with Priscilla and 

uila. This may illustrate just the degree of local reference in 
fr pistle to the RomansJ We have emphasized more than once 
ra fact that we cannot argue anything from such passages as this 
as to the state of the Roman community; but St. Paul would not 
write in the air, and the knowledge of the character of the Jewish 
population in Rome gained from political refugees-would be just 
sufficient to suggest this topic. A second cause which would lead 
him to introduce it would be the fascination which he felt for the 
power and position of Rome, a fascination which has been already 
illustrated (Introduction, §-1). ~ 
~Tt must be remembered that when this Epistle was written the 
Roman Empire had never appeared in the character of a persecutor. 
Persecution had up to this time always come from the Jews or from 
popular riots. To St. Paul the magistrates who represented 
the Roman power had always been associated with order and 
restraint. The persecution of Stephen had probably taken place 
in the absence of the Roman governor: it was at the hands of the 
Jewish king Herod that James the brother of John had perished: 
at Paphos, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, at Ephesus, St. Paul had 
found the Roman officials a restraining power and all his experience 
would support the statements that he makes: ‘ The rulers are not 
a terror to the good work, but to the evil:’ ‘He is a minister of 
God to thee for good:’ ‘ He is a minister of God, an avenger for 
wrath to him that doeth evil.’ Nor can any rhetorical point be 
made as has been attempted from the fact that Nero was at thig 
time the ruler of the Empire. It may be doubted how far the vices 












XIII. 1-7.] ON OBEDIENCE TO RULERS 373 


of a ruler like Nero seriously affected the well-being of the 
provincials, but at any rate when these words were written the 
world was enjoying the good government and bright hopes of 
Nero’s Quinguennium. 

The true relations of Christianity to the civil power had been 
laid down by our Lord when He had said: ‘ My kingdom is not of 
this world,’ and again: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that be 
Caesar’s and to God the things that be God’s.’ It is difficult to 
believe that St. Paul had not these words in his mind when he 
wrote ver. 7, especially as the coincidences with the moral teaching 
of our Lord are numerous in these chapters. At any rate, starting 
from this idea he works out the principles which must lie at the 
basis of Christian politics, that the State is divinely appointed, or 
permitted by God; that its end is beneficent; and that the spheres 
of Church and State are not identical. 

It has been remarked that, when St. Paul wrote, his experience 
might have induced him to estimate too highly the merits of the 
Roman government. But although later the relation of the Church 
to the State changed, the principles of the Church did not. In 
1 Tim. ii. 1, 2 the Apostle gives a very clear command to pray for 
those in authority : ‘I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, 
prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for 
kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil 
and quiet life in all godliness and gravity’; so also in Titus iii. 1 
‘Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities.’ 
When these words were written, the writer had to some extent at 
any rate experienced the Roman power in a very different aspect. 
Still more important is the evidence of rt Peter. It was certainly 
Written at a time when persecution, and that of an official character, 
had begun, yet the commands of St. Paul are repeated and with 
even greater emphasis (1 Pet. ii. 13-17). 


The sub-Apostolic literature will illustrate this. Clement is writing to the 
Corinthians just after successive periods of persecution, yet he includes 
a prayer of the character which he would himself deliver, in the as yet 
unsystematized services of the day, on behalf of secular rulers. ‘Give 
concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth... while we 
tender obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name, and to our 
tulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, Lord and Master, hast given 
them the power of sovereignty through Thine excéllent and unspeakable 
might, that we, knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast given them, 
may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing resisting Thy will. Grant unto 
them therefore, O Lord, health, peace, concord, stability, that they may 
administer the government which Thou hast given them without failure. 
For Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men 

lory and honour and power over ali things that are upon the earth. De 

ou, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and well- 

pleasing in Thysight.’ Still more significant is the letter of Polycarp, which 

was written very shortly after he had met Ignatius on his road to martyrdom; 

in it he emphasizes the Christian app by combining the command to pray 
Bbs 


372 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS _— [XIII. 1-7. 


for rulers with that to love our enemies. ‘Pray also for kings and powers 
and princes and for them that persecute and hate you and for the enemies ef 
the cross, that your fruit may be manifest among all men that ye may be 
perfect in Him.’ (Clem. Rom. Ix, lxi; Polyc. ad Phil. xii.) 

It is not necessary to give further instances of a custom which prevailed 
extensively or universally in the early Church. It became a commonplace 
of apologists (Just. Mart. 4fo/.i.17; Athenagoras, Leg. xxxvii; Theophilus, 
i. 11; Tertullian, 4fo/. 30, 39, ad Scap. 2; Dion. Alex. ap Eus. H. £. VIL. xi; 
Amob. iv. 36) and ‘is found in all liturgies (cf. Const. Ap. viii. 12). 

One particular phase in the interpretation of this chapter demands a passing 
notice. In the hands of the Jacobean and Caroline divines it was held to 
support the doctrine of Passive Obedience. This doctrine has taken a variety 
of forms. Some held that a Monarchy as opposed to a Republic is the only 
scriptural form of government, others that a legitimate line alone has this 
divine right. A more modified type of this teaching may be represented by 
a sermon of Bishop Berkeley (Passive Obedience or the Christian Doctrine 
of not resisting the mipreme power, proved and vindicated upon the principles 
of the law of nature in a discourse delivered at the College Chapel, 1712. 
Works, iii. p. 101). He takes as his text Rom. xiii. 2 ‘ Whosoever resisteth 
the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.’ He begins ‘It is not my design 
to inquire into the particular nature of the government and constitution of 
these kingdoms.’ He then proceeds by assuming that ‘ there is in every civil 
community, somewhere or other, placed a supreme power of making laws, 
and enforcing the observation of them,’ His main purpose is to prove that 
‘Loyalty is a moral virtue, and thou shalt not resist the supreme power, 
a rule or law of nature, the least breach whereof hath the inherent stain of 
moral turpitude.’ And he places it on the same level as the commandments 
which St. Paul quotes in this same chapter. 

Bishop Berkeley represents the doctrine of Passive Obedience as expounded 
in its most philosophical form. But he does not notice the main difficulty. 
St. Paul gives no directions as to what ought to be done when there is 
a conflict of authority. In his day there could be no doubt that the rule of 
Caesar was supreme and had become legitimate: all that he had to con- 
demn was an incorrect view of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ as a theocracy 
established on earth, whether it were held by Jewish zealots or by Christians. 
He does not discuss the question, ‘if there were two claimants for the 
Empire which should be supported?’ for it was not a practical difficulty 
when he wrote. So Bishop Berkeley, by his use of the expression ‘some- 
where or other,’ equally evades the difficulty. Almost always when there is 
a rebellion or a civil war the question at issue is, Who is the rightful 
governor? which is the power ordained by God ? 

But there is a side of the doctrine of Passive Obedience which requires 
emphasis, and which was illustrated by the Christianity of the first three 
centuries. ‘The early Christians were subject to a power which required 
them to do that which was forbidden by their religion. To that extent 
and within those limits they could not and did not obey it: but they never 
encouraged in any way resistance or rebellion. In all things indifferent the 
Christian conformed to existing law; he obeyed the law ‘not only because of 
the wrath, but also for conscience sake.’ He only disobeyed when it was 
necessary to do so for conscience sake. The point of importance is the 
detachment of the two spheres of activity. The Church and the State are 
looked upon as different bodies, each with a different work to perform. To 
designate this or that form of government as ‘ Christian,’ and support it on 
these grounds, would have been quite alien to the whole spirit of those days. 
The Church must influence the world by its hold on the hearts and consciences 
of individuals, and in that way, and not by political power, will the 
Kingdom of God come. 


XIII. 8,9.] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW 373 


LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALL LAW. 


XIII. 8-10. There is one debt which the Christian must 
always be paying but never can discharge, that of love. All 
particular precepts are summed up in that of love, which 
makes injury to-any man impossible. 


8. St. Paul passes from our duties towards superiors to that one 
principle which must control our relations towards all men, love. In 
xii. g the principle of love is introduced as the true solution of all 
difficulties which may arise from rivalry in the community; here it 
is represented as at the root of all regulations as to our relations to 
others in any of the affairs of life. 

pndevi pndév Shethete must be imperative as the negatives show. 
It sums up negatively the results of the previous verse and suggests 
the transition, ‘ Pay every one their due and owe no man anything.’ 

ei pi) 16 dyamay GdAxdous: ‘Let your only debt that is unpaid 
be that of love—a debt which you s be attempting to 
discharge in full, but will never succeed in discharging. ”  Permanere 
famen ef nunguam cessare a nobis debitum caritatis: hoc enim et quo- 
tidte solvere et semper debere expedit nobis. Orig. By this pregnant 
expression St. Paul suggests both the “obligation ¢ flare ail the 
impossibility of fulfilling it. This is more forcible than to suppose 
=< in the meaning of ddeidere: ‘Owe no man anything, only 
ye ought to love one another,’ 

6 yap dyamGv x.t.X. gives the reason why ‘love’ is so important : 
if a man truly loves another he has fulfilled towards him the whole 
law. voor is not merely the Jewish law, although it is from it that 
the illustrations that follow are taken, but law as a principle. Just 
as in the relations of man and God ziors has been substituted for 
voyos, So between man and man dydz7 takes the place of definite 
legal relations.” The perfect wemAjpoxev implies that the fulfilment 
is already accomplished simply in the act of love. 

®. St. Paul gives instances of the manner in which ‘love’ fulfils 
law. No man who loves another will injure him by adultery, by 
murder, by theft, &c. They are all therefore summed up in the 
one maxim ‘thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ as indeed 
they were also in the Old Covenant. 





The AV. adds after ob «AéWers in this verse ob Wevdouaprupyces from the 
O.T. with 8 P &c., Boh. &c., as against ABDEFGL &c., Vulg. codd. and 
most Fathers. év 7@ before dyaryceis is omitted by BF G. For ceavréy of 
the older MSS. (8 A B D E), later MSS. read éaurév, both here and elsewhere. 
In late Greek éaurév became habitually used for all persons in the reflexive, 
and scribes substituted the form most usual to them. 

The order of the commandments is difierent irom that in the Hebrew text 


374 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [xrmr. 9, 10. 


both in Exodus xx. 13 and Deut. v. 17, namely, (6) Thon shalt do no murder, 
(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt not steal. The MSS 
of the LXX vary; in Exodus B reads 7, 8, 6, A F 6, 7, 8; in Dent. B reads 
7, 6,8 (the order here), AF 6, 7,8. The order of Romans is that also of 
Luke xviii. 20; James ii.11; Philo De Deca/ogo; Clem.-Alex. Strom. vi. 16. 


kal ei tis érépa shows that St. Paul in this selection has only 
taken instances and that he does not mean merely to give a sum- 
ming up of the Jewish law. 

évaxepahaoitar: a rhetorical term used of the summing up of 
a speech or argument, and hence of including a large number of 
separate details under one head. As used in Eph. i. 10 of God 
summing up all things in Christ it became a definite theological 
term, represented in Latin by recaprtulatio (Iren. ILI. xxii. 2). 

*Ayamyjces tév mAnoloy cou ads éautév. Taken from Leviticus 
xix, 18 where it sums up a far longer list of commandments. It 
is quoted Matt. xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31; Luke x. 27; Gal. v. 14; 
James ii. 8 where it is called Baoicxds vdpos. 

10. 4 dyday ... odk épydferas. Love fulfils all law, because no 
one who loves another will do him any ill by word or deed. These 
words sum up what has been said at greater length in x Cor. xiii. 
4-6. 

tArpwpa, ‘complete fulfilment.’ The meaning of 7A. here is 
given by ver. 9 ‘ He that loveth his neighbour has fulfilled (mewAy- 
poxev) law, therefore love is the fulfilment (7Ajpopa) of law. 


The History of the word aydnn. 


There are three words in Greek all of which may be translated by the 
English ‘love,’ épdw, piréw, dyardw. Of these épdm with its cognate form 
€oawat was originally associated with the sexual passion and was thence 
transIerred to any strong passionate affection; g:Aéw was used rather of 
warm domestic affection, and so of the love of master and servant, of parents 
and chililren, of husband and wife; in Homer, of the love of the gods for 
men. épav is combined with émO@uvyeiv and contrasted with giAciy as ib 
Xen. Hier. xi. 11 dare ov povoy pidoio &v adda Kat Ep@o. One special use 
of épas and épaw must be referred to, namely, the Platonic. The intensity 
and strength of human passion seemed to Plato to represent most adequately 
the love of the soul for higher things, and so the philosophic épas was used 
for the highest human desire, that for true knowledge, true virtue, true 
immortality. 

The distinction of ¢:Aéw and dyardw much resembled that between ame 
and atligo. The one expressed greater affection, the other greater esteem. 
So Dio Cassius xliv. 48 epsAnoare avtdy ds marépa kal iyyamjoare Ws cdep- 
yérnv; and John xxi. 15-17 Aéye aitd mddw Sevrepov, Sivov "Iwavou, 
ayamGs pe; A€ye: av7@, Nai, Kupie: od oidas Sts PtAW Ge «.7.A, (see Trench, 
Syn. § xii). It is significant that no distinction is absolute; but giAéw 
occasionally, still more rarely dyamdw, are both used incorrectly of the 
sexual passion. There is too close a connexion between the different forms 
of human affection to allow any rigid distinction to be made in the use of 
vords. 

When these words were adopted into Hellenistic Greek, a gradual change 


XIII. 8-10.] LOVE THE FULFILMENT OF ALLLAW 375 


was made in their use. épdm and its cognates are very rarely used, and 
almost invariably in a bad sense. In the N.T. they do not occur at all, the 
word éméupéw being employed instead. Yet occasionally, even in biblical 
and ecclesiastical Greek, the higher sense of the Platonic épws finds a place 
(Prov. iv. 6; Wisdom viii. 2; Justin, Dza/. 8, p. 225 B; Clem.-Alex. Cok. 
Ir, p. 90; see Lightfoot, /enatius ad Rom. vii. 2). Between dyanaw and 
gtkéw a decided preference was shown for the former. It occurs about 
268 times (Hatch and Redpath) in a very large proportion of cases as a 
translation of the Hebrew STS; ptAéw about twelve times (Trommius), ex- 


cluding its use as equivalent to oscu/or. This choice was largely due to the 
use of the Hebrew word to express the love of God to man, and of man te 
God (Deut. xxiii. 5; xxx. 6; Hosea ili, 1); it was felt that the greater 
amount of intellectual desire and the greater severity implied in dyamdw fitted 
it better than g:Aéw for this purpose. But while it was elevated in meaning 
it was also broadened; it is used not only of the love of father and son, of 
husband and wife, but also of the love of Samson for Delilah (Jud. xvi. 4) 
and of Hosea’s love for his adulterous wife (Hos. iii. 1). Nor can there be any 
doubt that to Hebrew writers there was in a pure love of God or of righteous- 
ness something of the intensity which is the highest characteristic of human 
passion (Is. ]xii. 5). d-yandw in the LXX corresponds in all its characteristics 
to the English ‘love.’ 

But not only did the LXX use modify the meaning of dyad, it created 
a new word aya. Some method was required of expressing the conception 
which was gradually growing up. “Epws had too sordid associations. :Aia 
was tried (Wisdom vii. 14; viii. 18), but was felt to be inadequate. The 
language of the Song of Solomon created the demand for dyamn. (2 Kings 
1or2 times; Ecclesiastes 2; Canticles 11 ; Wisdom 2; Ecclus.1; Jeremiah 1; 
Ps, Sol. 1.) 

The N.T. reproduces the usage of the LXX, but somewhat modified. 
While dyandw is used 138 times, g:Aéw is used in this sense 22 times (13 in 
St. John’s Gospel); generally when special emphasis has to be laid on the 
relations of father and son. But the most marked change is in the use of 
ayann. It is never used in the Classical writers, only occasionally in the 
LXX; in early Christian writers its use becomes habitual and general. 
Nothing could show more clearly that a new principle has been created than 
this creation of a new word. 

In the Vulgate dyad is sometimes rendered by di/ectio, sometimes by 
caritas; to this inconsistency are due the variations in the English 
Authorized Version. The word carifas passed into English in the Middle 
Ages (for details see Eng. Dict. sé voc.) in the form ‘charity,’ and was for 
some time used to correspond to most of the meanings of dyamy; but as the 
English Version was inconsistent and no corresponding verb existed the 
usage did not remain wide. In spite of its retention in 1 Cor. xiii. ‘charity’ 
became confined in all ordinary phraseology to ‘benevolence,’ and the 
Revised Version was compelled to make the usage of the New Testament 
consistent. 

Whatever loss there may have been in association and in the rhythm of 
well-known passages, there is an undoubted gain. The history of the word 
dyanao is that of the collection under one head of various conceptions which 
were at any rate partially separated, and the usage of the N. T. shows that 
the distinction which has to be made is not between giAéw, dyandw and 
épaw, but between dyamy and ém@uuia. The English language makes this 
distinction between the affection or passion in any form, and a purely animal 
desire, quite plain; although it may be obliterated at times by a natural 
euphemism. But setting aside this distinction which must be occasionally 
present to the mind, but which need not be often spoken of, Christianity does 
not shrink from declaring that in all forms of human passion and affection 


376 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. 8-10, 


which are not purely animal there is present that same love which in its 
highest and most pure development forms the essence and sum of the 
Christian religion. This affection, however perverted it may be, Christianity 
does not condemn, but so far as may be elevates and purifies, 


The Christian Teaching on Love. 


The somewhat lengthy history just given of the word dydrn is 
a suitable introduction to the history of an idea which forms a fun- 
damental principle of all Christian thought. 

The duty of love in some form or other had been a common- 
place of moral teaching in times long before Christianity and in 
many different places. Isolated maxims have been collected in its 
favour from very varied authors, and the highest pagan teaching 
approaches the highest Christian doctrine. But in all previous 
philosophy such teaching was partial or isolated, it was never 
elevated to a great principle. Maxims almost or quite on a level 
with those of Christianity we find both in the O. T. and in Jewish 
writers. The command ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
self’ is of course taken directly from the O.T., and is there used 
to sum up in one general principle a long series of rules. Sayings 
of great beauty are quoted from the Jewish fathers. ‘ Hillel said, 
Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, 
loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Torah’ (Purge 
Aboth i, 13); or again, ‘What is hateful to thyself do not to thy 
fellow; this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary; go 
study,’ also ascribed to Hillel. It is however true in all cases that 
these maxims, and all such as these, are only isolated instances, that 
they do not represent the spirit of earlier institutions, and that they 
form a very insignificant proportion compared with much of 
a different character. 

In Christianity this principle, which had been only partially 
understood and imperfectly taught, which was known only in 
isolated examples, yet testified to a universal instinct, was finally 
put forward as the paramount principle of moral conduct, uniting 
our moral instincts with our highest religious principles. A new 
virtue, or rather one hitherto imperfectly understood, had become 
recognized as the root of all virtues, and a new name was demanded 
for what was practically a new idea. 

In the first place, the new Christian doctrine of love is universal. 
‘Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and 
hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and 
pray for them that persecute you;’ and a very definite reason is 
given, the universal Fatherhood of God. This universalism which 
underlies all the teaching of Jesus is put in a definite practical 
form by St. Paul. ‘In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, 


XIII. 11.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 377 


bond nor free, male nor female.’ As it is summed up in a well- 
known work: ‘ The first law, then, of the kngdom of God is that 
all men, however divided from each other by blood or language, 
have certain mutual duties arising out of their common relation to 
God’ (Ecce Homo, chap. xii). 





Just that feeling which you have towards the persons to whom you 
are most attached in the world, just that you must feel for every one. 
If you have that feeling there will be no need for any further 
command. Love is a principle and a passion, and as such is the 
fulfilment of the Law. Christ ‘declared an ardent, passionate, or 
devoted state of mind to be the root of virtue’; and this purifying 
passion, capable of existing in all men alike, will be able to re- 
deem our nature and make laws superfluous. 

And thirdly, how is this new Christian spirit possible? It is 
possible because it is intimately bound up with that love which is 
a characteristic of the Godhead. ‘God is love.’ ‘A new com- 
mandment I give to you, that ye should love one another as I have 
loved you.’ It is possible also because men have learnt to love 
mankind in Christ. ‘Where the precept of love has been given, 
an image must be set before the eyes of those who are called on to 
obey it, an ideal or type of man which may be noble and amiable 
enough to raise the whole race, and make the meanest member of 
it sacred with reflected glory.’ This is what Christ did for us. 

These three points will help to elucidate what St. Paul means by 
aya. It is in fact the correlative in the moral world to what faith 
is in the religious life. Like faith it is universal; like faith it is 
a principle not a code; like faith it is centred in the Godhead. 

ence St. Paul, as St. John (1 John iii. 23), sums up Christianity 
in Faith and Love, which are finally, united in that Love of God, 
which is the end and root of both. 


THE DAY IS AT HAND. 


XIII. 11-14. The night of this corrupt age ts fiying. 
The Parousia ts nearing. Cast off your evil ways. Gird 
yourselves with the armour of light. Take Christ into your 
hearts. Shun sin and self-indulgence. 

ll. The Apostle adds a motive for the Christian standard of 


life, the nearness of our final salvation. 
Kat todro, ‘and that too’: cp. 1 Cor. vi. 6, 8; Eph, ii. 8, &c.: it 


378 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. 11-18. 


resumes the series of exhortations implied in the previous sections; 
there is no need to supply any special words with it. 

tov katpov: used of a definite, measured, or determined time, and 
so almost technically of the period before the second coming of 
Christ: cf. 1 Cor. vii. 29 6 xatpds ouvectadpevos; Mark i. 15; and 
SO 6 xatpds 6 eveatas (Heb. ix. g). 

ott Opa Hoy K.T.A. 7d) With eyepOjvar, The time of trial on earth 
is looked upon as a night of gloom, to be followed by a bright 
morning. We must arouse ourselves from slumber and prepare 
ourselves for the light. 

viv yap éyydrepov x.t.h. ‘ For our completed salvation, no longer 
that hope of salvation which sustains us here, is appreciably nearer 
for us than when we first accepted in faith the Messianic message.’ 
Gre émorevoauey refers to the actual moment of the acceptance of 
Christianity. The language is that befitting those who expect the 
actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the 
circumstances of any Christian for whom death brings the day. 


In ver. 11 the original duds (N A BC P, Clem.-Alex.) has been corrected 
for the sake of uniformity into judas (N* D EF G L, &c., Boh. Sah.). Inver. 13 
év pict kat (dows is a variant of B, Sah., Clem.-Alex. Amb. In ver. 14 B, 
and Clem.-Alex. read rév Xpiardy “Incotv, which may very likely be the 
correct reading. 


12. mpodxoev, ‘has advanced towards dawn.’ Cf. Luke ii. 52; 
Gal. i. 14; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. iv. 6; Just. Dial. p. 277d. 

The contrast of tmvos, wé, and oxéros with nucpa and és finds 
many illustrations in Christian and in all religious literature. 

émro0dpe8a. The works of darkness, z.e. works such as befit the 
kingdom of darkness, are represented as being cast off like the 
uncomely garments of the night, for the bright armour which 
befits the Christian soldier as a member of the kingdom of light. 
This metaphor of the Christian armour is a favourite one with 
St. Paul (x Thess. v. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 7; Rom. vi. 13; and especially 
Eph. vi. 13 f.); it may have been originally suggested by the 
Jewish conception of the last great fight against the armies of 
Antichrist (Dan. xi; Orac. Sid. iii. 663 f; 4 Ezra xiii. 33; Enoch 
xc. 16), but in St. Paul the conception has become completely 
spiritualized, 

13. edoxnpdvws tmeptmatjowpev. The metaphor sepuarev of 
conduct is very common in St. Paul’s Epistles, where it occurs 
thirty-three times (never in the Past. Epp.); elsewhere in the 
N.T. sixteen times. 

xdpots, ‘rioting,’ ‘revelry’ (Gal. v. a1; 1 Pet. iv. 3). én the 
drunkenness which would be the natural result and accompaniment 
of such revelry. 

Koitats Kat doedyelats, ‘unlawful intercourse and wanton acts, 
"Opa dé thy tdakw copdlov péev yap tis pedver, peduww 8€ Kora feras, 


XIII. 13,14.] THE DAY IS AT HAND 379 


roiraCopevos 8€ aceAyaivet, Tov olvov ToiToy TH TANT BOR mupmoAOUrTOS Kal 
dtepeCi{orvros, Euthym.-Zig. 

14. év8dcacGe tav Kiptov “Inoodv Xpiotéy. Christ is put on first in 
baptism (vi. 3; Gal. ill. 27), but we must continually renew that 
life with which we have been clothed (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 12). 

Tis capKés with zpdvocav: the word is thrown forward in order to 
emphasize the contrast between the old nature, the flesh of sin, and 
the new, the life in Christ. 

On this passage most commentators compare St. Aug. Confess. 
viii. 12, 23 Arriput, aperus et legt in silentio capttulum, quo pri- 
mum coniectt sunt ocult met: Non in conversationibus et ebrie- 
tatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non in contentione et 
aemulatione: sed induite Dominum Iesum Christum, et carnis 
providentiam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis. Mee ulira volui 
legere, nec opus erat. Siatim quippe cum fine hutusce sententiae quasi 
luce securitatis infusa cordi meo, omnes dubitationis tenebrae diffu- 
gerunt, 


The early Christian belief in the nearness of the 


mapousia, 


There can hardly be any doubt that in the Apostolic age the 
prevailing belief was that the Second Coming of the Lord was an 
event to be expected in any case shortly and probably in the life- 
time of many of those then living; it is also probable that this 
belief was shared by the Apostles themselves. For example, so 
strongly did such views prevail among the Thessalonian converts 
that the death of some members of the community had filled them 
with perplexity, and even when correcting these opinions St. Paul 
speaks of ‘ we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of our 
Lord’; and in the second Epistle, although he corrects the 
erroneous impression which still prevailed that the coming was 
immediate and shows that other events must precede it, he still 
contemplates it as at hand. Similar passages may be quoted from 
all or most of the Epistles, although there are others that suggest 
that it is by his own death, not by the coming of Christ, that 
St. Paul expects to attain the full life in Christ to which he looked 
forward (1 Cor. vii. 29-31; Rom. xiii. 11, 12; Phil. iv. 5; and 
on the other side 2 Cor. v. 1-10; Phil. i. 23; iii. 11, 20, 21; see 
Jowett, Thessalonians, &c., i. p. 105, who quotes both classes of 
passages without distinguishing them). 

How far was this derived from our Lord’s own teaching? 
There is, it is true, very clear teaching on the reality and the 
suddenness of the coming of Christ, and very definite exhortation 
to all Christians to live as expecting that coming. This teaching 
is couched largely in the current language of Apocalyptic literature 


380 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIII. 11-14 


which was often hardly intended to be taken literally even by 
Jewish writers; moreover it is certainly mingled with teaching 
which was intended to refer to what was a real manifestation of the 
Divine power, and very definitely a ‘coming of the Lord’ in the 
O.T. sense of the term, the destruction of Jerusalem. All this 
language again is reported to us by those who took it in a literal 
sense. The expressions of our Lord quoted as prophetic of His 
speedy return are all to a certain extent ambiguous ; for example, 
‘ This generation shall not pass away until all these things be ful- 
filled,’ or again ‘ There be some of them here who shall not taste of 
death until they see the Son of God coming with power.’ On the 
other side there is a very distinct tradition preserved in documents 
of different classes recording that when our Lord was asked de- 
finitely on such matters His answers were ambiguous. Acts i. 7 
‘It is not for you to know times and seasons, which the Father 
hath set within His own authority.’ John xxi. 23 ‘ This saying 
therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should 
not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, 
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ Moreover 
he affirmed that He Himself was ignorant of the date Mark xiii. 32; 
Matt. xxiv. 36 ‘ But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not 
even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.’ 

In the face of these passages it is reasonable to believe that 
this ignorance of the Early Church was permitted and that with 
a purpose. Ifso, we may be allowed to speculate as to the service 
it was intended to fulfil. 

In the first place, this belief in the nearness of the second coming 
quickened the religious and moral earnestness of the early Christian. 
Believing as intently as he did ‘ that the fashion of this world passeth 
away,’ he ‘set his affection on things above’; he lived in the world 
and yet not of the world. The constant looking forward to the 
coming of the Lord produced a state of intense spiritual zeal which 
braced the Church for its earliest and hardest task. 

And secondly, it has been pointed out very ably how much the 
elasticity and mobility of Christianity were preserved by the fact that 
the Apostles never realized that they were building up a Church 
which was to last through the ages. It became the fashion of 
a later age to ascribe to the Apostles a series of ordinances and 
constitutions. Any such theory is quite inconsistent with the real 
spirit of their time. ‘They never wrote or legislated except so far 
as existing needs demanded. They founded such institutions as 
were clearly required by some immediate want, or were part of our 
Lord’s teaching. But they never administered or planned with 
a view to the remote future. Their writings were occasional, 
suggested by some pressing difficulty; but they thus incidentally 
laid down great broad principles which became the guiding principles 


XIII. 11-14] THE DAY IS AT HAND 381 


of the Church. The Church therefore is governed by case law, not 
by code law: by broad principles, not by minute regulations. It 
may seem a paradox, but yet it is profoundly true, that the Church 
is adapted to the needs of every age, just because the original 
preachers of Christianity never attempted to adapt it to the needs 
of any period but their own. 


The relation of Chaps. XII-XIV to the Gospels. 


There is a very marked resemblance between the moral teaching 
of St. Paul contained in the concluding section of the Epistle to the 
Romans, and our Lord’s own words; a resemblance which, in some 
cases, extends even to language. 


Rom. xii. 14. Matt v. 44. 

evroyeire tos Sidxovras tpas* dyanGre rovs éxOpovs tuay, kat mpoa= 

ebdoyetre, Kal 2) katapacbe, eUxeo0e Umep TaV SiwKdVTOY bas. 

Rom. xiii, 7. Matt. xxii. a1. 

drddore nace TAs dpeaAds #.7.A. dnédore otv ra Kaicapos Katoapi, 

wal TA ToD Oeod TH Ocg. 

Rom. xiii. 9. Matt. xxii. 39, 40. 

wal ef mis érépa evrodh, év rovTy Sevrépa 5é dpoia airy, ’Ayarjoes 


TH Adyp dvaxepadraovTa, ev TH Tv TANioY Gov ws ceauTov. ev TavTALS 
*Ayannces Toy mAnoiov gov ws ais dvalv évrodais dAos 6 vdpos Kpé- 
éautév para: kat of mpopiras. 


To these verbal resemblances must be added remarkable identity 
of teaching in these successive chapters. Everything that is said 
about revenge, or about injuring others, is exactly identical with the 
spirit of the Sermon on the Mount; our duty towards rulers exactly 
reproduces the lesson given in St. Matthew’s Gospel; the words 
concerning the relation of ‘love’ to ‘law’ might be an extract from 
the Gospel: the two main lines of argument in ch. xiv, the absolute 
indifference of all external practices, and the supreme importance 
of not giving acause of offence to any one are both directly derived 
from the teaching of Jesus (Matt. xviii. 6, 7, xv. 11-20). This 
resemblance is brought out very well by a recent writer (Knowling, 
Witness of the Epistle, p. 312): ‘Indeed it is not too much to add 
that the Apostle’s description of the kingdom of God (Rom. xiv. 17) 
reads like a brief summary of its description in the same Sermon 
on the Mount; the righteousness, peace, and joy, which formed the 
contents of the kingdom in the Apostle’s conception are found side 
by side in the Saviour’s Beatitudes; nor can we fail to notice how 
both St. Matthew and St. Luke contrast the anxious care for meat 
and drink with seeking in the first place for the kingdom of God 
and His righteousness. Nor must it be forgotten that Paul’s 
fundamental idea of righteousness may be said to be rooted in the 
teaching of Jesus.’ 


382 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS  [XII-XIV. 


It .8 well known that there are definite references by St. Paul to 
the words of our Lord: so 1 Thes. iv. 15 = Matt. xxiv. 31; 1 Cor. 
vii. 10 = Mark x. 9; 1 Cor. ix. 14 = Luke x. 7; as also in the case 
of the institution of the Last Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 24. Reminiscences 
also of the Sermon on the Mount may be found in other Epistles, 
e. g. James iv. 9 = Matt. v. 4; James v. 12 = Matt. v. 33; 3 Pet. 
iii. 9 = Matt. v. 39; 1 Pet. iv. 14 = Matt. v. 11, 12, and elsewhere. 
The resemblances are not in any case sufficient either to prove 
the use of any document which we possess in its present form, or 
to prove the use of a different document (see below); but they do 
show that the teaching of the Apostles was based on some common 
source, which was identical both in substance and spirit with those 
words of our Lord contained in the Gospels. 

They suggest further that even in cases where we have no direct 
evidence that Apostolic teaching is based on the Gospel narrative 
it does not follow that our Lord Himself did not originate it. 
For Christianity is older than any of its records. The books 
of the N. T. reflect, they did not originate, the teaching of early 
Christianity. Moreover, our Lord originated principles. It was 
these principles which inspired His followers; some of the words 
which are the product of and which taught those principles are 
preserved, some are not; but the result of them is contained in the 
words of the Apostles, which worked out in practical life the 
principles they had learnt directly or indirectly from the Christ. 


A much more exact and definite conclusion is supported with very great 
industry by Alfred Resch in a series of investigations, the first of which is 
Agrapha, Aussercanonische Evangelien-fragmente in Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, v. 4. He argues (pp. 28, 29) that the acquaintance shown by 
St. Paul with the words and teaching of Jesus implies the use of an Urcanon- 
tsche Quellenschrift, which was also used by St. Mark, as well as the other 
N.T. writers. It would be of course beside our purpose to examine this theory, 
but so far as it concerns the passages we are considering it may be noticed: 
(1) That so far as they go there would be no reason why all St. Paul's teach- 
ing should not have been derived from our present Gospels. He does not 
profess to be quoting. and the verbal reminiscences might quite well represent 
the documents we possess. (2) That it is equally impossible to argue against 
the use of different Gospels. The only legitimate conclusion is that there 
must have been a common teaching of Jesus behind the Apostle’s words 
which was identical in spirit and substantially in words with that contained 
in our Synoptic Gospels. Some stress is laid by Resch (pp. 245, 302 ff.) 
on passages which are identical in Romans and 1 Peter. So Rom. xii. 17= 
1 Pet. iii.g; Rom. xiii. 1, 3 = 1 Pet. ii. 13,14. The resemblance is un- 
doubted, but a far more probable explanation is that 1 Peter is directly 
indebted to the Romans (see Introduction § 8). There is no reason to cite 
these as ‘ Words of the Lord’; yet it is very probable that much more of the 
common teaching and even phraseology of the early Church than we are 
acéustomed to imagine goes back to the teaching of Jesus. 


XIV. 1-XV.7.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 383 


ON FORBEARANCE TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE 
SCRUPULOUS. 


XIV.1—XV.13. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially. 
Do not be continually condemning him. Some of you have 
grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose 
conscience is too tender lay undue stress on particular prac- 
tices, on rules as to food or the observance of certain days. 
Do not you whose faith is more robust despise such scruples 5 
nor should they be censorious (vv. 1-5). 

Every one should make up his own mind. These things 
are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he 
must look to Christ. Inlife and death we are all His, whose 
death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To 
Him as to no one else shall we be called upon to give account 
(vv. 6-12). 

We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we 
avoid placing obstacles before a fellow-Christian. I believe 
jirmly that nothing ts harmful ix itself, but it becomes so to 
the person who considers it harmful. The obligation of love 
and charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things. 
Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It ts not 
worth while for the sake of a litile meat to undo God's 
work in a brother's soul. Far betier abstain from flesh and 
wine altogether (vv. 13-21). 

Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to 
yourself and God. To hesitate and then eat is to incur 
guilt ; for it is not prompted by strong faith (vv. 22, 23). 

This rule of forbearance applies to all classes of the com- 
munity. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak. 
We should not seek our own good, but that of others ; following 
the example of Christ as expounded to us in the Scripiures; 
those Scriptures which were written for our encouragement 
and consolation. May God, from whom this entcxragement 
comes, grant you all—weak and strong, Few and Geniile—to 
be of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (xv. 1-7). 





384 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV.L 


For Christ has received you all alike. To both Few and 
Gentile He has a special mission. To the Fews to exhibit 
God’s veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy; that 
Gentile might unite with Few, as Psalmist and Prophet 
foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. May God 
the giver of hope send it richly upon you (vv. 8-13). 


XIV. 1—XvV. 13. The Apostle now passes on to a further point; 
the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent, 
but concerning which some members of the community might have 
scruples. The subject is one which naturally connects itself with 
what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these 
concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the 
peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately 
suggested by the words just preceding: St. Paul has been con- 
demning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite 
extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very 
different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs 
more openly the ‘strong’ who can bear it, while indirectly showing 
the error of the ‘weak.’ The arguments throughout are, as we shall 
see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic 
of the moral teaching of the Epistle—the freedom of Christian faith, 
the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace 
and unity on which St. Paul never wearies of insisting. 

Tertullian (Adv. Mare. v. 15) refers to ver. 10, and Origen (Comm. in 
Rom. x. 43, Lomnn. vii. p. 453) to ver. 23. Of Marcion’s use of the rest of the 
chapter we know nothing. On chaps. xv, xvi, see Introduction, § 9. 

1. tov 8€ doPevoivta tH miote:: cf. Rom. iv. 19; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 9, 
10, 11; ix. 22. ‘Weakness in faith,’ means an inadequate grasp 
of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the conse- 
quence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation 
more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules. 

mpoohapBdveode, ‘receive into full Christian intercourse and 
fellowship. The word is used (1) of God receiving or helping 
man: Ps, xxvi (xxvii) 10 6 marnp pov Kal 4 pitnp pou €ykarédumdy pe, 
6 S€ Kips mpoceddSerd pe: so in ver. 3 below and in Clem. 
Rom. xlix. 6 év dydzn mpoceddBero hpas 6 deondtyns, But (2) it is 
also used of men receiving others into fellowship or companion- 
ship: 2 Macc. viii. 1 rods pepevnkdras ev 7 “Iovdaicpe mpoodraSdpevoe 
ournyayov «is éfaxicxtNiovs. These two uses are combined in xv. 7 
‘ All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community, 
whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised, 
every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.’ 

py eis Staxpicers Siadoyiopav, ‘but not to pass judgements 
on their thoughts.’ Receive them as members of the Christian 


XIV. 1-4] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 385 


community, but do not let them find that they have been merely 
received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous 
thoughts are perpetually being condemned. Saxpicets, from dcaxpive 
to ‘judge,’ ‘decide,’ ‘distinguish,’ means the expression of judge- 
ments or opinions, as Heb. v. 14 ‘judgement of good or evil,’ 
1 Cor. xii. 10 ‘judgement or discernment of spirits.’ d:a\oyopev 
means ‘thoughts,’ often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt, 
hesitation (Luke xxiv. 38), disputes (Phil. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8), or 
generally of perverse self-willed speculations. ‘The above interpre- 
tation of diaxpices is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.) 
and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense 
could be gained by translating (with Lips.) ‘not so as to raise 
doubts in his mind,’ or (with Gif.) ‘ not unto discussions of doubts’; 
but neither interpretation can be so well supported. 

2. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which 
he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both 
sides. 

és pev...6 82 doGevGv. With the variation in construction cf. 1 Cor. 

xii. 8-10; Mark iv. 4; Luke viii. 5. The second 6 is not for ds, but is to be 

taken with doOevav. 

motevet, ‘ hath faith to eat all things’; his faith, i.e. his grasp and 
hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how 
indifferent all such matters in themselves really are. 

Adxava éo8ier, ‘abstains from all flesh meat and eats only 
vegetables.’ Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is 
describing the practice of some definite party in the Roman 
community and have discussed, with great divergence of opinion, 
the motive of such a practice. But St. Paul is writing quite 
generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the 
first. He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong 
faith, who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity; and on 
the other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over- 
scrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of 
scrupulousness in food which might occur. To both these classes 
he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them 
will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399). 

3. 6 écBiwy...6 82 pi eoPiwy. St. Paul uses these expressions 
to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6). 
Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one; a spirit 
of censoriousness of the other. 

6 ©eds yap aitév mpocehdBeto. See ver. 1. God through Christ 
has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them 
minute and formal observances; they are not therefore to be 
criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God has 
not required. 

4 od tis ef; St. Paul is still rebuking the ‘weak.’ The man 

ce 


386 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 4,5. 


whom he is condemning is not a household slave, but the servant of 
God; to God therefore he is responsible. 

7@ i8io xupiw, Dat. of reference: cf. wv. 5-8. ‘It is to his 
own master that he is responsible.’ He it is to whom he must show 
whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had 
the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed. miwre 
(xi. 11, 22) of moral failure; orjxe: (1 Cor. xvi. 13; Phil. i. 27) of 
moral stability. In 1 Cor. x. #2 the two are contrasted, dore 6 
Soxav éordva Brerér@ pu) TEo7. 

otaQyjcetat dé: cf. Matt. xii. 25. In spite of your censoriousness 
he will be held straight, for the same Lord who called him on 
conditions of freedom to His kingdom is mighty to hold him 
ee The Lord will give grace and strength to those whom He 

as called. 


For dwaret (© ABCD FG), which is an unusual word, later MSS. 
substituted duvarés (P, Bas. Chrys.), or duvards... éorw (TR with L 
and later MSS.). For 6 Kvpios (8 A BCP, Sah. Boh., &c.) 6 @eds was ine 
troduced from ver. 3 (DEFGL, &c., Vulg., Orig.-lat. Bas. Chrys., &c.), 
perhaps because of the confusion with 7@ Kupig above. 


5. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulous- 
ness,—the superstitious observance of days. In Galatia ke has 
already had to rebuke this strongly; later he condemns the Colos- 
sians for the same reason. Gal. iv. 10, 11 ‘ Ye observe days, and 
months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any 
means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain.’ Col. ii. 16, 17 
‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect 
of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are 
a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.’ St. Paul 
does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this 
practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the 
question, as illustrating (hence yap) the general discussion of the 
chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in 
themselves indifferent, but that each person must be fully assured 
in his own conscience that he is doing right. 

Various commentators have discussed the relation of these direc- 
tions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make 
a distinction between the Jewish rites which are condemned and 
Christian rites which are enjoined. (So Jerome, Contra Jovinian. 
ii. 16, quoted by Liddon ad loc.: mon inter ietunia et saluriiaiem 
aegualia mente dispensat; sed contra eos loguitur, qui in Chrisium 
sredentes, adhuc tudaizabant.) No such distinction is possible. The 
Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he 
lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indif- 
ferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupu- 
lousness in any form. So these same principles would apply 
equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether 


XIV. 5, 6.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 38) 


as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints’ days or 
Fast days. Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous 
spirit are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom. 
When once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion 
to the rules of the Church becomes possible. The Jew and 
the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons, 
because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact 
adherence to formal ordinances. The Christian who has grasped 
the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves 
of all such ordinances; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of 
his Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the 
value of an external discipline. The Apostolical Constitutions, 
which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to 
recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence 
from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it, 
although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline. 


Tisch. (ed. 8) reads here és pev yap with SN ACP, Vulg. Boh. (which he 
quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo.-Damasc. The yap is 
omitted by X*¢ BD EFG, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. TR. RV. and inserted 
between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right; 
the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly 
Western in character. 


Kpiver, ‘estimates,’ ‘approves of’: Plat. Paz. p. 57 E is quoted. 
mapd, ‘passing by’ and so ‘in preference to.’ 

TAnpopopeicOw, The difference between the Christian and the 
Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and 
the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite 
and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the 
only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of 
the Spirit; he must do what his vots, his highest intellectual faculty, 
tells him to be right. On the word mAnpodopeicOw see on iv. 21 
and cf. Clem. Rom. xlii mAnpodopnéévres dia THs avactdceos. 

6. The reason for indifference in these matters is that both 
alike, both the man who has grasped the Christian principle and 
the man who is scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing, 
to render service to God, to live as men who are to give account 
to Him. 

6 dpovay: ‘esteem,’ ‘estimate,’ ‘ observe.” Kupiw, emphatic, is Dat. 
of reference as above, ver. 4. 

6 éobiwv...6 ph eoOiwy: see ver. 3. Both alike make their 
meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that 
which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in edxapuotet to 
the Christian evxapioria? 


After Kupiy ¢povef the TR. with later authorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas. 
Chrys. Thdrt.) add wal 6 pr ppovay tiv jpépay Kupio ov ppovet, a gloss 
which seemed necessary for completing the sentence an the analogy of the 

cca2 


388 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 6-9. 


last half of the verse. The addition of this clause caused the omission of 
wat before 6 écdiav (TR. with some minuscules). That the words «at 6 ph 
gpov@v were not parts of the original text omitted by homoeoteleuton is 
shown by the fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the 
superfluous «ai (Syrt., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minuscules). Various 
instances of homoeoteleuton occur, as might be expected, in these verses, but 
they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits «a? 
6 pn éoOiaw .. . Evy. TE GeP: 66 omits Hycpay to Hucpay; ménsesc. 3 omit 
éadia to éobie. 


7-12. St. Paul proceeds to develop more fully, and as a general 
tule of life, the thought suggested in ver. 6. To God we are 
responsible whether we live or die; before His judgement-seat we 
shall appear; therefore we must live as men who are to give 
account of our lives to Him and not to one another. 

7. oddeis yap... &mo8vnjoxe. In life and in death we are not 
isolated, or solitary, or responsible only to ourselves. It is not by 
our own act we were created, nor is our death a matter that con- 
cerns us alone. 

8. 7 Kupiw: ‘ but it is to Christ, as men living in Christ’s sight 
and answerable to Him, that we must live; in Christ’s sight we 
shall die. Death does not free us from our obligations, whether we 
live or die we are the Lord’s.’ Wetstein compares Pirgé Adofh, iv. 
32 ‘Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an 
asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast 
born, and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce 
thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of 
the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.’ 


It may be noticed that in these verses St. Paul describes the Christian life 
from a point of view other than that which he had adopted in ra viii. 
There it was the higher aspects of that life as lived in union with Christ, 
here it is the life lived as in His sight and responsible to Him, 


9. The reason for this relation of all men to Christ as servants 
to their master is that by His death and resurrection Christ has 
established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and 
living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape. 

eis ToUTO is explained by iva xupievoz. 

émé0ave kai €Lycev must refer to Christ’s death and resurrection. 
¢noev cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (1) because of the 
order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately 
varied from the order (apev cai drobvycxwper of the previous verses ; 
(2) because the Lordship of Christ is in the theology of St. Paul 
always connected with His resurrection, not His life, which was 
a period of humiliation (Rom. viii. 34; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11); (3) 
because of the tense; the aorist é(noev could be used of a single 
definite act which was the beginning of a new life, it could not be 
used of the continuous life on earth. 

vexpav kai {évtwv. The inversion of the usual order is owing to 


XIV. 9-12.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 389 


the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, dc. cai 
(no. For the xupiérms of Christ (iva xupteton) see Phil. ii. 9, 11. 

For Xporés the TR. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads xat Xpiords. 
dréGaver «ai é(noev, the olderand most difficult reading (N ABC, Boh., Arm. 
Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrys. 1/2) has been explained in various ways; by a7é6. «at 
avéorn F G, Vulg. Orig. and other Fathers; by dzé0. «ai dvéor. xat dvé(noey 
TR. with msnusc. (perhaps conflate); by dwé0. kai dvéor. kai ECncev, LP. 
&c., Harkl. and some Fathers: by €(y0. «ai dwé0. wai dvéor. DE. Iren. 


10. St. Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he 
is discussing. We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear 
before Him: there is no place for uncharitable judgements or 
censorious exclusiveness between man and man. 

od S€ ti xpivers refers to 6 py ecbior, } Kai ot to 6 écbiav, 

mapactnodpe0a ta Byuatt tod Ceod. Cf. Acts xxvii. 24 Kaicapi 
oe dei rapactiva. For Squa, in the sense of a judge’s official seat, 
see Matt, xxvii. 19; Jo. xix. 13, &c. God is here mentioned as 
Judge because (see ii. 16) He judges the world through Christ. 
In 2 Cor. v. ro the expression is rods yap wdvras jpas davepwbjvat Set 
éumpoober tod Biuatos tov Xprorov. It is quite impossible to follow 
Liddon in taking cod of Christ in his Divine nature; that would 
be contrary to all Pauline usage: but it is important to notice how 
easily St. Paul passes from Xptorés to Geds. The Father and the 
Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often 
be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will 
judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ 
in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate 
union of the Father and the Son. 


@cod must be accepted as against Xprorov on decisive authority. The 
latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2 Cor. v. 10. 


11. St. Paul supports his statement of the universal character of 
God’s judgement by quoting Is. xlv. 23 (freely acc. to the LXX). 
In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal 
character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete 
fulfilment at the final judgement. 

efopodoyysetat TH Cea, ‘shall give praise to God,’ according to 
the usual LXX meaning ; cf. xv. 9, which is quoted from Ps. xvii 
(xviii). 50. 

(@ byh, A€yoo Kupios is substituted for eat’ épavrov dyvt, cf. Num. xiv. 28 

&c.; for 7aéca yA@ooa «.7.r. the LXX reads éyeira w. y. Tov Gedy. 


12. The conclusion is: it is to God and not to man that each of 
us has to give account. If Gea be read (see below), it may again 
be noted how easily St. Paul passes from Kupws to Geds (see on 
ver. ro and cf. xiv. 3 with xv. 7). 


There are several minor variations of text. oty is omitted by BDFGP 
and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read ¢tague. For duce of the TR. 


390 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 12-14 


WH. read dro8hae with BD F G Chrys., the Latin authorities reading reddit 
(but Cyprian dadit). 1 @c@ at the end of the sentence is omitted by BF G 
Cypr. Aug. In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group 
which is almost entirely Western in character. 


13. The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question. 
He has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in 
themselves indifferent; he has rebuked censoriousness and shown 
that a man is responsible to God alone. Now he turns completely 
round and treats the question from the other side. All this is 
true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this 
demands, above all, consideration for the feelings and consciences 
of others. 

Mnxért ofv ... xpivwxev marks the transition to the second ques- 
tion by summing up the first. 

kptvate: {or the play on words cf. xii. 3, 14, xiii. 1. ‘Do not 
therefore judge one another, but judge this for yourself, i.e. deter- 
mine this as your course of conduct’: cf. 2 Cor. ii. 1. 

TO ph Teva... TO AdEAGG ... oxdvSahov. riCévae is suggested 
by the literal meaning of oxdvdadov, a snare or stumbling-block 
which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word 
oxavdadov and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord’s 
words reported in Matt. xviii. 6f. See also his treatment of the 
same question in 1 Cor. viii. 9 f. 

tmpéckoppa .. . 4 should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As 

Weiss points out, the fact that 7 is omitted in all authorities which omit zp. 

proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. mpécxoppa 

would come in from 1 Cor. viii. 9 and ver, 20 below. 

14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influe 
ence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the 
indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated. 

év Kupiw *Incod. The natural meaning of these words is the 
same as that of év Xp. (ix. 1); to St. Paul the indifference of all 
meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life 
in Christ. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly 
to the words of Christ (Mark vii. 15; Matt. xv. 11); when doing 
so his formula is rapéAaBov amo tov Kupiov. 

xowov. The technical term to express those customs and habits, 
which, although ‘common’ to the world, were forbidden to the 
pious Jew. Jos. Ant. XIII. i. 1 tév xowdv Biov mponpnuevous: 
1 Macc. i. 47, 62; Acts x. 14 drt otdérore Epayov may Kowdy Kai 
axa@aprov, 

SU €autod, ‘in itself,” ‘in its own nature.’ 

That 5: éavrod is the right reading is shown by (1) the authority of SBC 
also of 1 (Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, § 7) supported by many later 

MSS., the Vulgate, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. Jz Domine 


ergo Iesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura sui dicitur, and 
Chrys. 77 guoe gpnoiv obdty dxabaproy and (2) by the contrast with 79 


XIV. 14-17.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 391 


Aoyfouéry. 3’ abro®, ‘through Christ” (so Theodrt. and later comm.) is 

@ correction. 

et py To Aoy:Lopévw «.t.X. Only if a man supposes that the 
breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public 
opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he 
is led to commit sin; for example, if at the common Eucharistic 
meal a man were compelled to eat food against his conscience it 
would clearly be wrong. 

15. et ydp. The ydp (which has conclusive manuscript authority) 
implies a suppressed link in the argument. ‘You must have 
respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share 
them, for if” &c. 

huzetrat. His conscience is injured and wounded, for he wiftully 
and knowingly does what he thinks is wrong, and so he is in danger 
of perishing (amcAdve). 

Giép ob Xptotos dwéfave. Cf. 1 Cor. viii. ro, rx. Christ died 
to save this man from his sins, and will you for his sake not give 
up some favourite food? 

16. pi) BAacdypeicbe x.t.h. Let not that good of yours, i. e. your 
consciousness of Christian freedom (cf. 1 Cor. x. 29 7 eAevfepia pev), 
become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as 
elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point, 
at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the 
reputation of the community with the outside world. The above 
interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan), 
is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation 
of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it 
(Mey-W. Lips. Liddon). 

17. Do not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause 
a breach in the harmony of the Church; for eating and drinking are 
not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit. 

4 Bactheia tod Geos. An echo of our Lord’s teaching. The 
phrase is used normally in St. Paul of that Messianic kingdom 
which is to be the reward and goal of the Christian life; so 
especially 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, where it is laid down that certain classes 
shall have no part in it. Hence it comes to mean the principles or 
ideas on which that kingdom is founded, and which are already 
exhibited in this world (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 20). The term is, of course, 
derived through the words of Christ from the current Jewish con- 
ceptions of an actual earthly kingdom; how far exactly such 
conceptions have been spiritualized in St. Paul it may be difficult 
to say. 

Bpaots xat méors. If, as is probable, the weak brethren are 
conceived of as having Judaizing tendencies, there is a special point 
in this expression. ‘If you lay so much stress on eating and drinking 
as tomake a point of indulging in what you will at all costs, you are 


392 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 17-20. 


in danger of falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the 
Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom 
to be one of material plenty ’ (Iren. V. xxxiii. 3). 

These words are often quoted as condemning any form of 
scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not 
St. Paul's idea. He means that ‘eating and drinking’ are in 
themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, 
and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely 
insignificant in comparison with ‘ righteousness’ and ‘ peace’ and 
‘joy. 

Sixatoodvn «.7.X. This passage describes man’s life in the 
kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian 
to God, but his life in relation to others. &:xaoown therefore is not 
used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man, 
but means righteousness or just dealing ; eipnyy is the state of peace 
with one another which should characterize Christians; yapa is the 
joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the 
community; cf. Acts ii. 46 pereddpBavoy rpodijs ev ayadhidoes Kal 
ageAsrnte Kapdias. 

18. The same statement is generalized. The man who, on the 
principle implied by these virtues (ev rovr@, not év rovrots), is Christ’s 
servant, i.e. who serves Christ by being righteous and conciliatory 
and charitable towards others, not by harshly emphasizing his 
Christian freedom, is not only well-pleasing to God, but will gain 
the approval of men. 

Séxipos tots dvOpdmors. The contrast to Bracpnueiobo of ver. 16. 
Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which 
will recommend a man to his fellow-men. dédxiuov, able to stand 
the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15). 

19. oixodouqs: cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26 mdvra mpos oixodopny ywiobo, 
1 Thess. v. 11 oixodopeire els roy Eva, 

Sidxopev (XN ABF GLP 3) is really more expressive than the somewhat 
obvious correction didxwpev (CDE, Latt.). DEF Gwhoadd guAdfopey 
after dAAAovs. 

20. xardd\ue . . . Epyow keeps up tne metaphor suggested by 
oixodou7js. ‘Build up, do not destroy, that Christian community 
which God has founded in Christ.’ Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 9 Gcov yap éopev 
ouvepyoi. Geod yeapyiov, Geod oixodoun éore. The words eipnyy and 
eixodoun both point to the community rather than the individual 
Christian. 

awdvra pev xaQapd: cf. 1 Cor. x. 23 mdvta éfcorw, GAX’ ob wavra 
Oupdépe. mavra eLeatw, Grd’ ov mavra oikodopel. 

éAXG Kady: the subject to this must be supplied from wdvra, It 
is a nice question to decide to whom these words refer. (1) Are 
they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are likely to give 
offence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries) ? 


XIV. 20-23.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 393 


or (2) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they 
think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W. 
and others)? In the former case da mpooxéuparos (on the é&d cf. ii. 
27, iv. 1) means ‘so as to cause offence,’ in the latter ‘so as to 
take offence’ (Tyndale, ‘who eateth with hurt of his conscience’). 
Perhaps the transition to ver. 21 is slightly better if we take (1). 

21. A thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the 
consciences of others; on the other hand, to give up what will injure 
others is a noble act. 

xahév: cf. 1 Cor. vii. 1 and for the thought 1 Cor. viii. 13 diérep, 
el Spdya cxavdariles rav adeApdy pov, od wy dayw xpéa cis Tov aidva, va 
pi) Tov ddeApdv pov cxavdadXicw, We know the situation implied 
in the Corinthian Epistle, and that it did not arise from the existence 
of a party who habitually abstained from flesh: St. Paul was 
merely taking the strongest instance he could think of. It is 
equally incorrect therefore to argue from this verse that there was 
a sect of vegetarians and total abstainers in Rome. St. Paul 
merely takes extreme forms of self-deprivation, which he uses as 
instances. ‘I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to 
offend my brother.’ 


The TR. adds after wpooxcnre the gloss 4 cxavdartlera: 4 doGeve? with B 
Western and Syrian authorities (NCB DEFGLP, &c., Vulg. Sah. Bas, 
Chrys.). They are omitted by NA C32, Pesh. Boh., Orig. and Orig.-lat. This 
is a very clear instance of a Western reading in B; cf. xi. 6. 


22. od miotw fy Exes. Your faith is sufficient to see that all 
these things are a matter of indifference. Be content with that 
knowledge, it is a matter for your own conscience and God. Do 
not boast of it, or wound those not so strong as yourself. 


The preponderance of authorities (§ A BC, Vulg. codd. Boh., Orig.-lat.) 
compels us to read fy éxes. The omission of 7y (DEF GLP3, Vulg. 
codd. Sytr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement. 


pakdptos «.7.A. Blessed (see on iv. 6, 7) because of his strong 
faith is the man who can courageously do what his reason tells him 
that he may do without any doubt or misgiving _xpivev, to ‘judge 
censoriously so as to condemn,’ cf. ii. 1, 3, 27). Soxipdger (i. 28, 
ii. 18) to ‘ approve of after testing and examining.’ 

23. 6 Sé€ Staxpivdpevos: see on iv. 20. If a man doubts or 
hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts, 
condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he 
would have no doubt or hesitation. 

wav Sé 6 otk éx Tictews, Guaptia éotiv. iors is subjective, the 
strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation. 
‘Weakly to comply with other persons’ customs without being 
convinced of their indifference is itself sin.’ This maxim (1) is not 
concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be 


394 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV. 23-XV. 1 


extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul is 
considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith. 


This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How 
important may be seen from the use made of itin Augustine Contra Julianum 
iv, one passage of which (§ 32) may be quoted: £x guo colligitur, etiam 
ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius gui bene 
utilur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt ; 
quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate: 
qualis voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quae facere non 
potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, welts nolis, quod 
non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time ithas been used to support the 
two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently 
that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these 
controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to 
notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chry- 
sostom says, ‘When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is 
clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been 
spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything.’ The words do 
not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who 
are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing 
Christians ; and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of 
a ‘good conscience’; ‘ everything which is not done with a clear conscience 
is sin.” So Aquinas, Summa i. 2, qu. xix, art. v. omme quod non est ex fide 
peccatum est, td est, omne quod est contra conscientiam. 

On the doxology (xvi. 25-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see 
the Introduction, § 8. 


XV. 1. The beginning of chap. xv is connected immediately 
with what precedes, and there is no break in the argument until 
ver. 13 is reached; but towards the close, especially in vv. 7-13, 
the language of the Apostle is more general. He passes from the 
special points at issue to the broad underlying principle of Christian 
unity, and especially to the relation of the two great sections of the 
Church—the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. 

éeihopev S€. Such weakness is, it is true, a sign of absence of 
faith, but we who are strong in faith ought to bear with scruples 
weak though they may be. ot 8dvaror not, as in 1 Cor. i. 26, the 
rich or the powerful, but as in 2 Cor. xii. 10, xiii. 9, of the morally 
strong. 

Baordfew: cf. Gal. vi. 2 GAAn\eov ra Bapn Baoratere. In classical 
Greek the ordinary word would be dé¢pew, but Bacrdfev seems to 
have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used of 
bearing the cross both literally (John xix. 17), and figuratively 
(Luke xiv. 27). We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Aq., 
Symm. and Theod. in Is. xl. 11, xvi. 12; in the two latter in 
Is. xiii. g; in Matt. viii. 17 quoting Is. liii. 3: in none of these 
passages is the word used in the LXX. It became a favourite word 
in Christian literature, Ign. Ad Polyc. 1, Epist. ad Diog. § 10 (quoted 
by Lft.). 

ae Loa épéoxew: cf. 1 Cor. x. 33 xadas kayo mayra nace 
Gpéoko, pi (nTav 7d evavrod aupdépor, where St. Paul is describing his 


XV. 2-4] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 395 


own conduct in very similar circumstances, He strikes at the root 
of Christian disunion, which is selfishness. 

2. eis 76 dya0dv mpos oikodopyy: cf. xiv. 16 duav 76 dyabdy, Ig Ta 
Tis oikodouts THs eis GAAnjAouvs. The end or purpose of pleasing them 
must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further 
defined by oixodouy, their edification. These words limit and 
explain what St. Paul means by ‘pleasing men.’ In Gal. i. 10 
(cf. Eph. vi. 6; 1 Thess. ii. 4) he had condemned it. In 1 Cor. ix. 
20-23 he had made it a leading principle of his conduct. The rule 
is that we are to please men for their own good and not our own. 


The yap after €xaoros of the TR. should be omitted. For juayv some 
authorities (F GP 3, Vulg., many Fathers) read tyav. 


3. nat yap 6 Xpiorés x.t.A. The precept just laid down is 
enforced by the example of Christ (cf. xiv. 15). As Christ bore 
our reproaches, so must we bear those of others. 

KaQas yéypamtat. St. Paul, instead of continuing the sentence, 
changes the construction and inserts a verse of the O. T. [Ps. 
Ixviii (Ixix). 10, quoted exactly according to the LXX], which he 
puts into the mouth of Christ. For the construction cf. ix. 7. 

The Psalm quoted describes the sufferings at the hands of the 
ungodly of the typically righteous man, and passages taken from it 
are often in the N. T. referred to our Lord, to whom they would 
apply as being emphatically ‘the just one.’ Ver. 4 is quoted 
John xv. 25, ver. 9a in John ii. 17, ver. 9b in Rom. xv. 3, ver. 12 
in Matt. xxvii. 27-30, ver. 21 in Matt. xxvii. 34, and John xix. 29, 
ver, 22, f. in Rom. xi. 9, ver. 25a in Acts i. 20. (See Liddon, 
ad loc.) 

ot dveSicpot x.7.d. In the original the righteous man is repre- 
sented as addressing God and saying that the reproaches against 
God he has to bear. St. Paul transfers the words to Christ, who is 
represented as addressing a man. Christ declares that in suffering 
it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore. 

4. The quotation is justified by the enduring value of the O. T. 

Tpoeypdpy, ‘were written before,’ in contrast with myercpav: 
cf. Eph. iii. 3; Jude 4, but with a reminiscence of the technical 
meaning of ypapew for what is written as Scripture. 

Siackahiov, ‘instruction’: cf. 2 Tim, iii. 16 maca ypapy Oed- 
mvevoTos kat @peAuos mpos diOacKaniav. 

tiv é\nida: the specifically Christian feeling of hope. It is the 
supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no cir- 
cumstances will the Christian be ashamed of that wherein he trusteth 
(Phil. i. 20); a confidence which tribulation only strengthens, for 
it makes more certain his power oi endurance and his experience 
of consolation. On the relation of patience to hope cf. v. 3 and 
1 Thess. i. 3. ‘ 


396 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 4-6. 


This passage, and that quoted above from 2 Tim. iii. 16, lay 
down very clearly the belief in the abiding value of the O.T. 
which underlies St. Paul’s use of it. But while emphasizing its 
value they also limit it. The Scriptures are to be read for our 
moral instruction, ‘for reproof, for correction, for instruction which 
is in righteousness’; for the perfection of the Christian character, 
‘that the man of God may be complete, furnished unto. every good 
work’; and because they establish the Christian hope which is in 
Christ. Two points then St. Paul teaches, the permanent value of 
the great moral and spiritual truths of the O.T., and the witness 
of the O. T. to Christ. His words cannot be quoted to prove more 
than this. 


There are in this verse a few idiosyncrasies of B which may be noted but 
need not be accepted; éypadn (with Vulg. Orig.-lat.) for mpoeypagn ; 
mavra before els tiv Au. (with P); rHs mapaxAnoews repeated after éxwpev 
(with Clem.-Al.). The TR. with N° AL P42, &c. substitutes mpoeypdgy for 
éypap7 in the second place, and with C-F DEF GP, &c., Vulg. Boh, Harcl. 
omits the second é:4. 


5. After the digression of ver. 4 the Apostle returns to the sub- 
ject of vv. 1-3, and sums up his teaching by a prayer for the unity 
of the community. 

6 8é Oeds Tis UTopovis Kat THs TapakAncews: Cf. é Geds ris eipnyns 
(ver. 33; Phil. iv. 9; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20), ris eAmidos 
(ver. 13), mdons mapaxdynoews (2 Cor. i. 3), maons xaperos (x Pet. 
v. Io). 

73 es dpovetv: cf. Phil. ii. 2-5 mAnpadcaré pov ri xapdy, iva rd 
auto ppovate . . . ToUTO Ppoveire ev ipiv O Kai ev Xp, "I. 

Kata Xptotov "Inoodv: cf. 2 Cor. xi. 17 & Aaa, ov Kara Kuptov 
AadS: Col. ii, 8 od xara Xp.: Eph. iv. 24 rév xawdv avOp@mov tov 
kata Ocov xricOevta (Rom. viii. 27, which is generally quoted, is not 
in point), These examples seem to show that the expression must 
mean ‘in accordance with the character or example of Christ.’ 

den for doi7, a later form, cf. a Thess. iii. 16; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18; ii. 25; 


Eph. i. 17 (but with variant dp in the last two cases). Xp. "Inc. (BDEGL, 
&c., Boh. Chrys.), not "Ino. Xp. NAC FP 3 Vulg., Orig.-lat. Theodrt. 


6. Unity and harmony of worship will be the result of unity 
of life. 

ép08upaddv, ‘with unity of mind.” A common word in the Acts 
(i. 14, &c.). 

tov Gcdv Kal Tatépa Tod Kupiou tpav "Incod Xptotod. This expres- 
sion occurs also in 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Eph. i. 3; 1 Pet.i. 3. In 
Col. i. 3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is r@ Geo warpi 
rov Kupiov yuav "I. X. Two translations are possible: (1) ‘God even 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Mey.-W. Gif. Lid., Lips.). 
In favour of this it is pointed out that while maryp expects some 
correlative word, Geds is naturally absolute; and that 6 Geds xal 


XV. 6-8.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 397 


watnp occurs absolutely (as in x Cor. xv. 24 Srav wapadi8ot ri» Bact- 
Aeiay TG Oe@ xai warpi), an argument the point of which does not 
seem clear, and which suggests that the first argument has not 
much weight. (2) It is better and simpler to take the words in 
their natural meaning, ‘The God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ’; (Va. Oltr. Go. and others), with which cf. Eph. i. 17 6 Ocds 
tod Kupiou npov “I. X.: Matt. xxvii. 46; Jn. xx. 17; Heb.i. 9. 

7. The principles laid down in this section of the Epistle are 
now generalized. All whom Christ has received should, without 
any distinction, be accepted into His Church. This is intended 
to apply especially to the main division existing at that time in the 
community, that between Jewish and Gentile Christians. 

516 mpoohapBdveoGe G&AAHous k.7.A.: the command is no longer 
to the strong to admit the weak, but to all sections of the com- 
munity alike to receive and admit those who differ from them; so 
St. Paul probably said ipas, not juas. The latter he uses in ver. 1, 
where he is identifying himself with the ‘ strong,’ the former he uses 
here, where he is addressing the whole community, On 6&1 cf. Eph. 
ii, 11; 1 Thess. v. 11: On mpoodapBavecde see xiv. I, 3. 

ids is read by NAC EFGL, Vulg. Poh. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. ; pas 


by BD P32. Bis again Westem, and its authority on the distinction between 
jpas and tpas is less trustworthy than on most other points (see WH. ii. 


pp- 218, 310). 


eis Sdfav Ccod with mpocehdSero: ‘in order to promote the 
glory of God.’ As the following verses show, Christ has sum- 
tnoned both Jews and Greeks into His kingdom in order to 
promote the glory of God, to exhibit in the one case His iaithful- 
ness, in the other His mercy. So in Phil. ii, rr the object of 
Christ’s glory is to promote the glory of God the Father. 

8. St. Paul has a double object. He writes to remind the Gen- 
tiles that it is through the Jews that they are called, the Jews that 
the aim and purpose of their existence is the calling of the Gentiles. 
The Gentiles must remember that Christ became a Jew to save 
them; the Jew that Christ came among them in order that all the 
families of the earth might be blessed: both must realize that the 
aim of the whole is to proclaim God’s glory. 

This passage is connected by undoubted links (dé ver. 7; Aéyw 
yap ver. 8) with what precedes, and forms the conclusion of the 
argument after the manner of the concluding verses of ch. viii. and 
ch. xi. This connexion makes it probable that ‘the relations of 
Jew and Gentile were directly or indirectly involved in the rela- 
tions of the weak and the strong.’ (Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 29.) 

Sidkovov ... wepttopyjs: not ‘a minister of the circumcised,’ still 
less a ‘ minister of the true circumcision of the spirit,’ which would 
be introducing an idea quite alien to the context, but ‘a minister 
of circumcision’ (so Gifford, who has an excellent note), i.e. to 


398 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. 8-16. 


carry out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which 
was circumcision; so 2 Cor. iii. 6 8:axdvous xawis diabqxns. In the 
Ep. to the Galatians (iv. 4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ was 
‘born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them 
which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of 
sons. Qn the Promise and Circumcision see Gen. xii. 1-3, xvii. 
1-14. 

The privileges of the Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as fol- 
lows: (1) Christ has Himself fulfilled the condition of being circum- 
cised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned. (2) The 
primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews 
(cf. Rom. ii. 9, 10). (3) It was only as a secondary result of this 
Messiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the bless- 
ing came to the Jews tmép ddnOeias to preserve God’s consistency, it 
came to the Gentiles imép édéous for God’s loving-kindness. 

yeyev7jc0a, which should be read with NAELP 4S (yeyervqade) ; it was 
altered into the more usual aorist yevéo@a: (BC DF G), perhaps because it 
was supposed to be co-ordinated with dofaca. 

Tas émayyeNias Tov Tatépwv cf. ix. 4, 5. 

9. Ta Se EOvy ... 80fdcar. Two constructions are possible for 
these words: (1) they may be taken as directly subordinate to A¢eyo 
yap (Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would 
be to contrast imep éAéous with imép adnécias. But the real antithesis 
of the passage is between BeBadoat ras érayyeXias and ra €6vn doéd- 
oa: and hence (2) ta dc... vn... dofdoae should be taken as 
subordinate to eis ré and co-ordinate with BeSadoa (Gif. Mey. 
Lid., Va.). With this construction the point of the passage 
becomes much greater, the call of the Gentiles is shown to be (as 
it certainly was), equally with the fulfilment of the promise to the 
Jews, dependent on the covenant made with Abraham (iv. 11, 12, 
16, 17). 

tila yéypamtat. The Apostle proceeds, as so often in the 
Epistle, to support his thesis by a series of passages quoted from 
the O. T. 

Sta TodTo «.7.A.: taken almost exactly from the LXX of Ps. xvii 
(xviii). 50. In the original David, as the author of the Psalm, is 
celebrating a victory over the surrounding nations: in the Messianic 
application Christ is represented as declaring that among the 
Gentiles, i.e. in the midst of, and therefore together with them, He 
will praise God. ¢é£onodoy/jaouat, ‘I will praise thee’: cf. xiv. 11. 

10. EdppdvOnre x.t.X.: from the LXX of Deut. xxxii. 43. The 
Hebrew, translated literally, appears to mean, ‘ Rejoice, O ye nations, 
His people.’ Moses is represented as calling on the nations to 
rejoice over the salvation of Israel. St. Paul takes the words as 
interpreted by the LXX to imply that the Gentiles and chosen 
people shall unite in the praise of God. 


XV. 11-13.] ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 399 


11. Aivetre x.t.A.: Ps. cxvi (cxvii). 1. LXX. An appeal to all 
nations to praise the Lord. 


There are slight variations in the Greek text and inthe LXX. For mavra 
Ta éOvn Tov Kiptov CF GL have rév K. x. 7. €. agreeing with the order of 
the LXX. énaweodraoay is read by NABCDE Chrys. (0 LXX AN 
aiveodtwoav) énavéoate by late MSS. with later LXX MSS. 


12. “Eotat 4 fifa «.t.X.: from Is. xi. 10, a description of the 
Messianic kingdom, which is to take the place of that Jewish king- 
dom which is soon to be destroyed. The quotation foliows the 
LXX, which is only a paraphrase of the Hebrew; the latter runs 
(RV.) ‘ And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, 
which standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the 
Gentiles seek.’ 

18. The Apostle concludes by invoking on his hearers a bless- 
ing—that their faith may give them a life full of joy and peace, that 
in the power of the Holy Spirit they may abound in hope. 

6 ©cds Tis éAmidos: cf. ver. 5. The special attribute, as in fact 
the whole of the benediction, is suggested by the concluding words 
of the previous quotation. 

Taos Xapas kat eipyvns. The joy and peace with God which is 
the result of true faith in the Christian’s heart. On cipyvy see i. 7. 


For tAnp@oa: (most MSS.) BF G have the curious variant tAnpopopjoat. 
B reads év méop xdpa kal cipnyn and omits «is 7d meprocevew: the pecu- 
liarities of this MS. in the last few verses are noticeable. DEFG omit 
& TO morevev. 

The general question of the genuineness of these last two chapters is 
discussed in the Introduction (§ 9). It will be convenient to mention in 
the course of the Commentary some few of the detailed objections that have 
been made to special passages. In xy. 1-13 the only serious objection is 
that which was first raised by Baur and has been repeated by others since. 
The statements in this section are supposed to be of too conciliatory a 
character; especially is this said to be the case with ver. 8. ‘How can we 
imagine,’ writes Baur, ‘that the Apostle, in an Epistle of such a nature and 
after all that had passed on the subject, would make such a concession to the 
Jewish Christians as to call Jesus Christ a minister of circumcision to confirm 
the promises of God made to the Fathers?’ To this it may be answered 
that that is exactly the point of view of the Epistle. It is brought out most 
clearly in xi. 17-25; it is implied in the position of priority always given to 
the Jew (i. 16; ii. 9, 10); it is emphasized in the stress continually laid on 
the relations of the new Gospel to the Old Testament (ch. iv, &c.), and 
the importance of the promises which were fulfilled (i. 2; ix. 4). Baur’s 
difficulty arose from an erroneous conception of the teaching and position of 
St. Paul For other arguments see Mangold, Der Romerbrief, pp. 81-100. 


What sect or party ts referred to in Rom. XIV? 


There has been great diversity of opinion as to the persons 
referred to in this section of the Epistle to the Romans, but all 
commentators seem to agree in assuming that the Apostle is 


400 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV-XV. 18. 


dealing with certain special circumstances which have arisen in the 
Church of Rome, and that the weak and the strong represent two 
parties in that Church. 

1. The oldest explanation appears to be that which sees in these 
disputes a repetition of those which prevailed in the Corinthian 
Church, as to the same or some similar form of Judaizing practices 
(Orig. Chrys. Aug. Neander, &c.). In favour of this may be 
quoted the earlier portion of the fifteenth chapter, where there is 
clearly a reference to the distinction between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. But against this opinion it is pointed out that such 
Jewish objections to ‘things offered to idols, or to meats killed in 
any incorrect manner, or to swine’s flesh, have nothing to do with 
the typical instances quoted, the abstinence altogether from flesh 
meat and from wine (vv. 2, 21). 

2. A second suggestion (Eichhorn) is that which sees in these 
Roman ascetics the influence of the Pythagorean and other heathen 
sects which practised and taught abstinence from meat and wine 
and other forms of self-discipline. But these again will not satisfy 
all the circumstances. These Roman Christians were, it is said, in 
the habit of observing scrupulously certain days: and this custom 
did not, as far as we know, prevail among any heathen sect. 

3. Baur sees here Ebionite Christians of the character repre- 
sented by the Clementine literature, and in accordance with his 
general theory he regards them as representing the majority of 
the Roman Church. That this last addition to the theory is tenable 
seems impossible. So far as there is any definiteness in St. Paul’s 
language he clearly represents the ‘strong’ as directing the policy 
of the community. They are told to receive ‘him that is weak in 
faith’; they seem to have the power to admit him or reject him. 
All that he on his side can do is to indulge in excessive criticism. 
Nor is the first part of the theory really more satisfactory. Of 
the later Ebionites we have very considerable knowledge derived 
from the Clementine literature and from Epiphanius (ger. xxx), 
but it is an anachronism to discover these developments in a period 
nearly two centuries earlier. Nor again is it conceivable that 
St. Paul would have treated a developed Judaism in the lenient 
manner in which he writes in this chapter. 

4. Less objection perhaps applies to the modification of this 
theory, which sees in these sectaries some of the Essene influence 
which probably prevailed everywhere throughout the Jewish world 
(Ritschl, Mey.-W. Lid. Lft. Gif. Oltr.). This view fulfils the 
three conditions of the case. The Essenes were Jewish, they were 
ascetic, and they observed certain days. If the theory is put in the 
form not that Essenism existed as a sect in Rome, which is highly 
improbable, but that there was Essene influence in the Jewish com- 
munity there, it is poszible. Yet if any one compares St. Paul’s 


XIV.-XV.13.] | ON SCRUPULOUSNESS 401 


language in other Epistles with that which he uses here, he will 
find it difficult to believe that the Apostle would recommend 
compliance with customs which arose, not from weak-minded 
scrupulousness, but from a completely inadequate theory of religion 
and life. Hort (Rom. and Eph., p. 27 f.) writes: ‘The true origin 
of these abstinences must remain somewhat uncertain: but much 
the most probable suggestion is that they come from an Essene 
element in the Roman Church, such as afterwards affected the 
Colossian Church.’ But later he modified his opinion (/udarstic 
Christianily, p. 128)° ‘ There is no tangible evidence for Essenism 
out of Palestine.’ 

All these theories have this in common, that they suppose St. Paul 
to be dealing with a definite sect or body in the Roman Church, 
But as our examination of the Epistle has proceeded, it has become 
more and more clear that there is little or no special reference in 
the arguments. Both in the controversial portion and in the 
admonitory portion, we find constant reminiscences of earlier 
situations, but always with the sting of controversy gone. St. Paul 
writes throughout with the remembrance of his own former expe- 
Fience, and not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman 
community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because 
they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church 
of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen 
Christians. These discordant elements may, he fears, unless wise 
counsels prevail produce the same dissensions as have occurred 
in Galatia or Corinth. 

Hort (Judaishe Christianity, p. 126) recognizes this feature in 
the doctrinal portion of the Epistle: ‘It is a remarkable fact,’ he 
writes, ‘respecting this Epistle to the Romans . . . that while it 
discusses the question of the Law with great emphasis and 1ulness, 
it does so without the slightest sign that there is a reference to 
a controversy then actually existing in the Roman Church.’ Unior- 
tunately he has not applied the same theory to this practical 
portion of the Epistle: if he had done so it would have presented 
just the solution required by all that he notices. ‘There is no 
reference,’ he writes, ‘to a burning controversy.’ ‘The matter is 
dealt with simply as one of individual conscience.’ He contrasts 
the tone with that of the Epistle to the Colossians. All these 
features find their best explanation in a theory which supposes 
that St. Paul’s object in this portion of the Epistle, is the same 
as that which has been suggested in the doctrinal portion. 

If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage 
is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, 
and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in 
ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that 
there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes 

ad 


402 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XIV.-XV. 18 


a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness, When again he 
says ‘one man considers one day better than another,’ he does not 
mean that this sect of vegetarians were also strict sabbatarians, but 
that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When 
he speaks of 6 gpovay ryv jpepav, 6 py éobiov he is not thinking 
of any special body of people but rather of special types. When 
again in ver. 21 he says: ‘It is good not to eat flesh, or drink 
wine, or do anything in which my brother is offended,’ he does 
not mean that these vegetarians and sabbatarians are also total 
abstainers; he merely means ‘even the most extreme act of self- 
denial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.’ He had 
spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians: ‘ Wherefore, if 
meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever- 
more, that I make not my brother to stumble’ (x Cor. viii. 13). It 
is not considered necessary to argue from these words that absti- 
nence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian 
sectaries ; nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here. 

St. Paul is arguing then, as always in the Epistle, from past 
experience. Again and again difficulties had arisen owing to 
different forms of scrupulousness. There had been the difficulties 
which had produced the Apostolic decree ; there were the difficulties 
in Galatia, ‘Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years’; 
there were the difficulties at Corinth. Probably he had already in 
his experience come across instances of the various ascetic tenden- 
cies which are referred to in the Colossian and Pastoral Epistles. 
We have evidence both in Jewish and in heathen writers of the 
wide extent to which such practices prevailed. In an age when 
there is much religious feeling there will always be such ideas. 
The ferment which the spread of Christianity aroused would create 
them. Hence just as the difficulties which he had experienced 
with regard to Judaism and the law made St. Paul work out and 
systematize his theory of the relation of Christianity to personal 
righteousness, so here he is working out the proper attitude of the 
Christian towards over-scrupulousness and over-conscientiousness. 
He is not dealing with the question controversially, but examining 
it from all sides. 

And he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all, 
the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite 
indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is 
sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they 
do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act 
against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man 
must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to 
appear before God’s judgement-seat. But there is another side 
to the question. By indifference to external observances we may 
injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly 


XV. 14.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 403 


indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then 
we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the 
strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must 
yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but 
certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual 
soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. 
Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such 
unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ 


APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS. 


XV. 14-21. These admonitions of mine do not imply that 
IL am unacquainted with your goodness and decp spiritual 
knowledge. In writing to you thus boldly I am only 
fulfilling my duty as Apostle to the Gentiles; the priest 
who stands before the altar and presents to God the Gentile 
Churches (vv. 14-17). 

And this is the ground of my boldness. For I can boast 
of my spiritual labours and gifts, and of my wide activity in 
preaching the Gospel, and that, not where others had done so 
before me, but where Christ was not yet named (vv. 18-21). 


14. The substance of the Epistle is now finished, and there only 
remain the concluding sections of greeting and encouragement. 
St. Paul begins as in i. 8 with a reference to the good report of the 
church. This he does as a courteous apology for the warmth of 
feeling he has exhibited, especially in the last section; but a com- 
parison with the Galatian letter, where there is an absence of any 
such compliment, shows that St. Paul’s words must be taken to 
have a very real and definite meaning. 

wérevopat Sé: cf. viii. 38, ‘Though I have spoken so strongly it 
does not mean that Iam not aware of the spiritual earnestness of 
your church.’ 

Kal autos éy® mept SuGy, Sti Kat adtot: notice the emphasis gained 
by the position of the words. ‘ And not I inquire of others to know, 
but J myself, that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you.’ Chrys. 

peotot: cf. Rom. i. 29, where also it is combined with wemAnpo- 
pevot. 

mdons yvdoews: ‘our Christian knowledge in its entirety.’ Cf. 
1 Cor. xiii. 2 wat cav yw mpognteiav cai ei@ Ta pvornpia mdvra kal 
MGoav THY yvaoww, Kat eav Exo TaCaY THY TioTLY K.T.A. ‘yvaots is used for 
the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive 
grasp of the real principles of Christianity. 


- 


404 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS  [XV. 14, 15. 


w7s is read by SBP, Clem.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc. It is omitted by 
AC DEFGL, &c.. Chrys. Theodrt. 


éyaQwodvns: cf. 2 Thess. i. rr; Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9; used 
only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them. 
Generally it means ‘goodness’ or ‘uprightness’ in contrast with 
eaxia, as in Ps, li. (lii.) § aydmnoas Kaxiav trép adyabwovmv: defined 
more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from dyads of 
active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined 
with yvéors, because the two words represent exactly the qualities 
which are demanded by the discussion in chap. xiv. St. Paul 
demands on the one side a complete grasp of the Christian faith 
as a whole, and on the other ‘goodness of heart,’ which may 
prevent a man from injuring the spiritual life of his brother Christians 
by disregarding their consciences. Both these were, St. Paul is 
fully assured, realized in the Roman community. 


Forms in -ctvn are almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic 
writers. Inthe N. T. we have éAenuoctvn, doxnpootvn, aywotvn, lepwaivn, 
peyarwovvn: see Winer, § xvi. a B (p. 118, ed. Moulton), 


Suvdpevor kat dAAndous vouberetv. Is it laying too much stress on 
the language of compliment to suggest that these words give a hint 
of St. Paul’s aim in this Epistle? He has grasped clearly the 
importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its 
moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the 
instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all 
that he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits. 


It is difficult to believe that any reader will find an inconsistency between 
this verse and i. 11 or the exhortations of chap. xiv, whatever view he may 
hold concerning St. Paul’s general attitude towards the Roman Church. It 
would be perfectly natural in any case that, after rebuking them on certain 
points on which he felt they needed correction, he should proceed to com- 
pliment them for the true knowledge and goodness which their spiritual 
condition exhibited. He could do so because it would imply a true estimate 
of the state of the Church, and it would prevent any offence being taken at 
his freedom of speech. But if the view suggested on chap. xiv. and throughout 
the Epistle be correct, and these special admonitions arise rather from the 
condition of the Gentile churches as a whole, the words gain even more 
point. ‘I am not finding fault with you, I am warning you of dangers 
you may incur, and I warn yon especially owing to your prominent and 
important position.” 


15. todpnpétepov. The boldness of which St. Paul accuses 
himself is not in sentiment, but in manner. It was a6 uépous, ‘in 
part of the Epistle’; vi. 12 ff., 19; viii. 9; xi. 17 ff.; xii. 3; 
xiii. 3 ff., 13 ff., xiv.; xv. 1, have been suggested as instances. 

éravapipyyockwv. Wetstein quotes éxacroy tuav, xaimep dxpiBas 
eiSora, Sus émavauyvjca Bovdouat Demosthenes, PAzl. 74, 7. The 
éwi seems to soften the expression ‘suggesting to your memory.’ 
St. Paul is not teaching any new thing, or saying anything which 


XV. 15-17.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 405 


a properly instructed Christian would not know, but putting more 
clearly and definitely the recognized principles and commands of 
the Gospel. 

Sua thy xdpw thy So0etcdy por. On St. Paul’s Apostolic grace 
cf, i. 5 80 od eAaBopev xapw Kai arooTvAnv: Xi. 3 Aeyo yap dia ts 
xapiros Tis Sodeions jot. 

It is probably preferable to read toApnpotrépws (A B, WH.) for toApnpé- 
tepov. The TR. adds dded¢goi after éypaya duty against the best authorities 
(SA BC, Boh., Orig. Aug. Chrys.) ; the position of the word varies even in 
MSS. in which it does occur. 7d is a correction of the TR. for d7é (RBF 
Jo.-Damasc.). 

16. \evtoupysv seems to be used definitely and technically as in 
the LXX of a priest. See esp. 2 Esdras xx. 36 (Neh. x. 37) rois 
iepedon Tois Nerroupyovow ev otk Ceod Huey. So in Heb. viii. 2 of our 
Lord, who is dpytepetds and tév dyiwv etroupyds: see the note on i. 9. 
Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as 
opposed to the priests as in 2 Esdras xx. 39 (Neh. x. 40) kat of 
iepeis Kai of Necrovpyoi, but there is no such idea here. 

tepoupyodrra, ‘being the sacrificing priest of the Gospel of God.’ 
St. Paul is standing at the altar as priest of the Gospel, and the 
offering which he makes is the Gentile Church. 

lepovpyeiv means (1) to ‘ perform a sacred function,’ hence (2) especially 
to ‘sacrifice’; and so 7a lepovpy7ev7a means ‘the slain victims ’; and then 
(3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions. Its con- 
struction is two-fold: (1) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed ; 
so Bas. sm Ps. cxv wai lepovpyjow aor tiv THs aivécews Ovoiav; or (2) 
lepoupyeiv 7 may be put for fcpoupydv twos eivar (Galen, de Theriaca pvorn- 
piav icpoupyév), so 4 Macc. vii. 8 (v. 1.) tovds iepoupyovvtas Tov vopov: Greg, 
Naz. lepoupyeiy owrnpiay Tivos (see Fri. ad doc. from whom this note is taken). 
| mpoodopd. With this use of sacrificial language, cf. xii. 1, 2. 

The sacrifices offered by the priest of the New Covenant were not 
the dumb animals as the old law commanded, but human beings, 
the great body of the Gentile Churches. Unlike the old sacrifices 
which were no longer pleasing to the Lord, these were acceptable 
(evmpdoderros, 1 Pet. ii. 5). Those were animals without spot or 
blemish; these are made a pure and acceptable offering by the 
Holy Spirit which dwells in them (cf. viii. 9, 11). 

For the construction of mpoogopa cf. Heb. x. 10 7. rod caparos"I. Xp. 

17. éxw ody thy Kkatxnow. The rqv should be omitted (see below). 
‘T have therefore my proper pride, and a feeling of confidence in 
my position, which arises from the fact that I am a servant of 
Christ, and a priest of the Gospel of God.’ St. Paul is defending 
his assumption of authority, and he does so on two grounds: 
(1) His Apostolic mission, da tiv yap tiv Socicay pot, as proved 
by his successful labours (vv. 18-20); (2) the sphere of his 
labours, the Gentile world, more especially that portion of it in 
which the Gospel had not been officially preached. The emphasis 


406 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV.17-19, 


therefore is on ¢v Xp. "L, and ra spis rév Gedv. With xavynow ef. 
iii. 27, x Cor. xv. 31; with the whole verse, 2 Cor. x. 13 qpeis 3¢ 
obxt eis Ta Guerpa Kavynodueba.. . 17 6 be kavyapevos ev Kupi xavyaobe, 


The RV. has not improved the text by adding thy before xavynaw. The 
combination SA LP, Boh., Arm., Chrys., Cyr., Theodrt. is stronger than that 
of BD EF G in this Epistle. C seems uncertain. 


18. of yap tohpjow «.t.A. ‘For I will not presume to mention 
any works but those in which I was myself Christ’s agent for the 
conversion of Gentiles.’ St. Paul is giving his case for the assump- 
tion of authority (cavxnors), It is only his own labour or rather 
works done through himself that he cares to mention. But the 
value of such work is that it is not his own but Christ’s working in 
him, and that it is among Gentiles, and so gives him a right to 
exercise authority over a Gentile Church like the Roman. 

With rotpyoo (NAC DEFGLP, Boh. Harcl., etc.) cf. 2 Cor. 
x. 42; there seems to be a touch of irony in its use here; with 
katetpydoaro 2 Cor. xii. 12, Rom. vii. 13, &c.; with Adyp «ai épyg, 
‘in speech or action,’ 2 Cor. x. 11. 

19. év Suvduer onpetwy «.t.d.: cf. 2 Cor. xii. 12 7a pév onpeta row 
amootoAov Kateipyaebn ev tuiv ev macy Uropovn, onpelors Te Kal Tépace Kat 
duvdpeot: Heb. ii, 4 cuveripaprupodytos tov Geod onueiots te Kat Tépacs 
kai motxihas Suvdueot kai Ivevparos “Ayiov pepiopois Kata THY avToU 
GeAnow: 1 Cor. xii. 28. 


The combination onpeia eat répara is that habitually used throughout the 
N. T. to express what are popularly called miracles. Both words have the 
same denotation, but different connotations. vépas implies anything mar- 
vellous or extraordinary in itself, onpetov represents the same event, but 
viewed not as an objectless phenomenon but as a sign or token of the agency 
by which it is accomplished or the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Often 
a third word dvvdpes is added which implies that these ‘works’ are the 
exhibition of more than natural power. Here St. Paul varies the expres- 
sion by saying that his work was accomplished in the power of signs and 
wonders; they are looked upon as a sign and external exhibition of the 
Apostolic xaps. See Trench, Miracles xci; Fri. ad loc. 

There can be no doubt that St. Paul in this passage assumes that he 
possesses the Apostolic power of working what are ordinarily called miracles, 
The evidence for the existence of miracles in the Apostolic Church is two- 
fold: on the one hand the apparently natural and unobtrusive claim made 
by the Apostles on behalf of themselves or others to the power of working 
miracles, on the other the definite historical narrative of the Acts of the 
Apostles. The two witnesses corroborate one another. Against them it 
might be argued that the standard of evidence was lax, and that the 
miraculous and non-miraculons were not sufficiently distinguished. But will 
the first argument hold against a personal assertion? and does not the 
narrative of the Acts make it clear that miracles in a perfectly correct sense 
of the word were definitely intended? 


dv Suvduer Mvedparos “Ayiou: cf. ver. 13, and on the reading here 
see below. St. Paul’s Apostolic labours are a sign of commission 
because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more 


XV. 19.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 407 


than natural gifts, and the source of his power is the Holy Spirit 
with which he is filled. 


This seems one of those passages in which the value of the text of B 
where it is not vitiated by Western influence is conspicuous (cf. iv. 1). It 
reads (alone or with the support of the Latin Fathers) mvedparos without 
any addition. NLP &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c., add @eo0, AC DF G Boh. 
Vulg. Arm., Ath. &c. read dyiov, Both were corrections of what seemed an 
unfinished expression. 


G6 ‘lepoucahhp Kat KUkh@ péxor tod “Ihd\uptkod. These words 
have caused a considerable amount of discussion. 

1. The first question is as to the meaning of kiko. 

(1) The majority of modern commentators (Fri. Gif. Mey-W.) 
interpret it to mean the country round Jerusalem, as if it were «ci 
rod xuxdw, and explain it to mean Syria or in a more confined 
sense the immediate neighbourhood of the city. But it may be 
pointed out that xix in the instances quoted of it in this sense 
(Gen. xxxv. 5; xli. 48) seems invariably to have the article. 

(2) It may be suggested therefore that it is better to take it as 
do the majority of the Greek commentators and the AV. ‘from 
Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum.’ So Oecumenius cvcAw 
Wa py THY Kat evOciav 6d0v évOvpnOgs, GAda Kata ta wepié and to the 
same effect Chrys. Theodrt. Theophylact. This meaning is exactly 
supported by Xen. Azad, VII. i. 14 cai wérepa b1a rod iepod Spous bén 
wopevecOat, } Kika dia péons tis Cpaxys, and substantially by Mark 
vi. 6. 

2. It has also been debated whether the words ‘as far as Illyria’ 
include or exclude that country. The Greek is ambiguous; 
certainly it admits the exclusive use. péype Gaddoons can be used 
clearly as excluding the sea. As far as regards the facts the narra- 
tive of the Acts (ra wépy exetva Acts xx. 2; cf. Tit. ili. 12) suggests 
that St. Paul may have preached in Illyria, but leave it uncertain. 
A perfectly tenable explanation of the words would be that if 
Jerusalem were taken as one limit and the Eastern boundaries 
of Illyria as the other, St. Paul had travelled over the whole of 
the intervening district, and not merely confined himself to the 
direct route between the two places. Jerusalem and Illyria in fact 
represent the limits. 

If this be the interpretation of the passage it is less important to 
fix the exact meaning of the word Illyria as used here ; but a passage 
in Strabo seems to suggest the idea which was in St. Paul’s mind 
when he wrote. Strabo, describing the Egnatian way from the 
Adriatic sea-coast, states that it passes through a portion of ° 
Illyria before it reaches Macedonia, and that the traveller along it 
has the Illyrian mountains on his left hand. St. Paul would have 
followed this road as far as Thessalonica, and if pointing Westward 
he had asked the names of the mountain region and of the peoples 


408 EPISTLE TO.-THE ROMANS ([XV. 10-2L 


inhabiting it, he would have been told that it was ‘Illyria’ The 
term therefore is the one which would naturally occur to him as 
fitted to express the limits of his journeys to the West (Strabo vii. 


7: 4). 


The word Illyria might apparently be used at this period in two senses. 
(1) As the designation of a Roman province it might be used for what was 
otherwise called Dalmatia, the province on the Adriatic sea-coast north 
of Macedonia and west of Thrace. (2) Ethnically it would mean the 
country inhabited by Illyrians, a portion of which was included in the Roman 

rovince of Macedonia. In this sense it is used in Appian, J/lyrica 1, 7; 
Pe Bell. Jud. Il. xvi.4; and the passage of Strabo quoted above. 


metAnpwxévar 73 edayyeAtov To’ Xpiorod: cf. Col. i. 25 fis eyevduny 
éy@ Sidkovos Kata THY oikovopiav Tov Ocod tiv dobciody pos cis Upas, mAn= 
pacat Tov Adyov rod Geod. In both passages the meaning is to ‘fulfil,’ 
‘carry out completely,’ and so in the AV. ‘to fully preach,’ In 
what sense St. Paul could say that he had done this, see below: 

20. ottw S€ pidoTipodpevoy x.7.A. introduces a limitation of the 
statement of the previous verses. Within that area there had been 
places where he had not been eager to preach, since he cared only 
to spread the Gospel, not to compete with others. otre is ex- 
plained by what follows. quAoripovpevov (x Thess. iv, 11; 2 Cor. 
v. 9) means to ‘strive eagerly,’ having lost apparently in late Greek 
its primary idea of emulation. See Field, Oum Worn. iii. p. 100, 
who quotes Polyb. i. 83; Diod. Sic. xii. 46; xvi. 49; Plut. Ver. 
Caes. liv. 

évondabn: ‘so named as to be worshipped.’ Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 19; 
Isa. xxvi. 13; Amos Vi. ro. 

GAAdtprov Oewedvov. For ddérpiov cf. 2 Cor. x. 15, 16. St. Paul 
describes his work (1 Cor. iii. ro) as laying a ‘foundation stone’: 
ws aopos apyirexrav Oeuedecy eOnxa* addos dé eémorxodopet: and so 
generally the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets (Eph. ii. 20). 

21. GANG Kalas yéypantat. St. Paul describes the aim of his 
mission (the limitations of which he has just mentioned) in words 
chosen from the O.T. The quotation which follows is taken 
verbally from the LXX of Isa. lii. 15, which differs but not es- 
sentially from the Hebrew. The Prophet describes the astonish- 
ment of the nations and kings at the suffering of the servant of 

ehovah. ‘That which hath not been told them they shall see.’ 

he LXX translates this ‘those to whom it was not told shall see,’ 
and St. Paul taking these words applies them (quite in accordance 
with the spirit of the original) to the extension of the knowledge 
of the true Servant of Jehovah to places where his name has not 
been mentioned. 


Verses 19-21, or rather a portion of them (@ore pe . . . dAAd), are still 
objected to by commentators (as by Lipsius) who recognize the futility of 


XV. 19-21.] APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS 4°9 


the objections to the chapter as a whole. In a former case (xi. 8-10) the 
clumsiness of an excision suggested by Lipsius was noticed and here he has 
not been any happier. He omits ver. 20, but keeps the quotation in ver. 21, 
yet this quotation is clearly suggested by the preceding words ody Saou 
avopuacen Xpiorés. It would be strange if an interpolator were to make the 
sequence of thought more coherent. 

The general objections to the passage seem to be— 

(1) It is argued that St. Paul had never preached in Jerusalem, nor would 
have been likely to mention that place as the starting-point of his mission ; 
that these words therefore are a ‘concession made to the Jewish Chris- 
tians,’ and hence that the chapter is a result of the same conciliation ten- 
dency which produced the Acts. Most readers would probably be satisfied 
with being reminded that according to the Acts St. Paul had preached in 
Jerusalem (Acts ix. 28, 29). But it may be also pointed out that St. Paul 
is merely using the expression geographically to define out the limits within 
which he had preached the Gospel; while he elsewhere (Rom. xi. 26) speaks 
of Sion as the centre from which the Gospel has gone forth. 

(2) It is asserted that St. Paul had never preached in Illyricum. There 
is some inconsistency in first objecting to the language of this passage 
because it agrees with that of the Acts, and then criticizing it because it 
contains some statement not supported by the same book. But the re- 
ference to Illyricum has been explained above. The passages of the Acts 
quoted clearly leave room for St. Paul having preached in districts inhabited 
by Illyrians. He would have done so if he had gone along the Egnatian 
way. But the words do not necessarily mean that he had been in Illyria, 
and it is quite possible to explain them in the sense that he had preached 
as far as that province and no further. In no case do they contain any 
statement inconsistent with the genuineness of the passage. 

(3) It is objected that St. Paul could in no sense ase such a phrase as 
memAnpwkevat TO evayyéArov. But by this expression he does not mean that 
he had preached in every town or village, but only that everywhere there were 
centres from which Christianity could spread. His conception of the duties 
of an Apostle was that he should found churches and leave to others to 
build on the foundation thus laid (1 Cor. iii. 7, 10). As a matter of fact 
within the limits laid down Christianity had been very widely preached. 
There were churches throughout all Cilicia (Acts xv. 42), Galatia, and 
Phrygia (Gal. i. 1; Acts xvili. 23). The three years’ residence in Ephesus 
implied that that city was the centre of missionary activity extending throngh- 
out all the province of Asia (Acts xix. 10) even to places not visited by 
St. Paul himself (Col. ii. 1). Thessalonica was early a centre of Christian 
propaganda (1 Thess. i. 7, 8; iv. 10), and later St. Paul again spent some 
time there (Acts xx. 2). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians contains in 
the greeting the words oiy Ttois dyios taot Trois ovcw & SAD TH ’Axaia, 
showing that the long residence at Corinth had again produced a wide 
extension of the Gospel. As far as the Adriatic coast St. Paul might well 
have considered that he had fulfilled his mission of preaching the Gospel, 
= the great Egnatian road he had followed would lead him straight to 

ome. 

(4) A difficulty is found in the words ‘that I may not build on another 
mans foundation.’ It is said that St. Paul has just expressed his desire to 
go to Rome, that in fact he expresses this desire constantly (i. 5, 13; xii. 3; 
xv. 15), but that here he states that he does not wish to build on another man’s 
foundation ; how then it is asked could he wish to go to Rome where there 
was already a church? But there is no evidence that Christianity had been 
officially or systematically preached there (Acts xxviii. 22), and only a small 
community was in existence, which had grown up chiefly as composed of 
settlers from other places. Moreover, St. Paul specially says that it is for 
the sake of mutual grace and encouragement that he wishes to go there; he 


410 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS  [XV. 22, 23. 


implies that he does not wish to stay long, but desires to press on furtha 
westward (ver. 24). 


THE APOSTLE’S PLANS. 


XV. 22-33. I have been these many times hindered from 
coming to you, although I have long eagerly desired tt. Now 
I hope I may accomplish my wish in the course of a journey 
to Spain. But not immediately. I must first take to Feru- 
salem the contributions sent thither by Macedonia and 
Achaia—a generous gift, and yet but a just recompense for 
the spiritual blessings the Gentile Churches have received 
from the Fews. When this mission ts accomplished I hope 
I may come to you on my way to Spain (vv. 22-29). 

Meantime I earnestly ask your prayers for my own 
personal safety and that the gifts I bear may be received by 
the Church. I shall then, if God will, come to you with 
a light heart, and be refreshed by your company. May the 
God of peace make His peace to light upon you (vv. 30-33). 


22. 85 kat. The reason why St. Paul had been so far prevented 
from coming to Rome was not the fear that he might build on 
another man’s foundation, but the necessity of preaching Christ in 
the districts through which he had been travelling ; now there was 
no region untouched by his apostolic labours, no further place for 
action in those districts. ¢vexomroynv: Gal. v. 7; 1 Th. ii. 18; 
1 Pet. iii. 7. 

Ta todd, ‘these many times,’ i.e. all the times when I thought 
of doing so, or had an opportunity, as in the RV.; not, as most 
commentators, ‘for the most part’ (Vulg. plerumque). modddns, 
which is read by Lips. with BDEFG, is another instance of 
Western influence in B. 

23. vuvl Sé pynxére témov Exwy, ‘seeing that I have no longer 
opportunity for work in these regions.’ dro», as in Xii. 19, q.V.; 
Eph. iv. 27 ; Heb. xii. 17, ‘opportunity,’ ‘scope for action.’ «Aiyacs, 
‘tracts’ or ‘regions’ (2 Cor. xi. 10; Gal.i. 21; often in Polybius). 

émmo@iav does not occur elsewhere; but éxirodeiy (Rom. i. 11; 
a Cor..v, 2; ix. 14; Phil. i. 8; if. 26; x Th. it Goa tee 
James iv. §; 1 Pet. ii. 2) and émmd@nors (2 Cor. vii. 7, 11) are not 
uncommon, On its signification, ‘a longing desire,’ see on i. 11. 

ixavav: a very favourite word in the Acts of the Apostles (ix. 23; 
xviii. 18, &c.). ‘It is likely enough that St. Paul’s special interest 
in the Christian community at Rome, though hardly perhaps his 


XV. 23, 24.] THE APOSTLE’S PLANS 411 


knowledge of it, dates from his acquaintance with Aquila and 
Priscilla at Corinth. This was somewhere about six years before 
the writing of the Epistle to the Romans, and that interval would 
perhaps suffice to justify his language about having desired to visit 
them dmé ixavéy érav (a rather vague phrase, but not so strong as 
the dré mohd\a@y éerav, which was easily substituted for it)’ Hort, 
Rom. and Eph. p. 11. 


For émmoSiay 58 Zxav Western authorities (D F G) read éx, an attempt 
to correct the grammar of the sentence. ixavdv, read by BC 37. 59. 71, 
Jo.-Damasc., is probably right for toAA@v, which is supported by all other 
authorities and is read by R.V. 


24. In this verse the words éAevoopat mpos tpas, which are inserted 
by the TR. after Szaviay, must be omitted on conclusive manuscript 
evidence, while ydp must as certainly be inserted after ¢Amigo. 
These changes make the sentence an anacolouthon, almost exactly 
resembling that in v. 12 ff., and arising from very much the same 
causes. St. Paul does not finish the sentence because he feels that 
he must explain what is the connexion between his visit to Spain 
and his desire to visit Rome, so he begins the parenthesis éAnifw ydp. 
Then he feels he must explain the reason why he does not start at 
once; he mentions his contemplated visit to Jerusalem and the 
purpose of it. This leads him so far away from the original 
sentence that he is not able to complete it; but in ver. 28 he 
resumes the main argument, and gives what is the logical, but not 
the grammatical, apodosis (cf. v. 18). 

@s dy mopedwuot. The os ay is temporal: cf. Phil. ii. 23; 1 Cor. 
xi. 34: on this latter passage Evans, in Speaker's Comm. p. 328, 
writes: ‘When I come: rather according as [ come: the presence of 
the a points to uncertainty of the time and of the event: for this 
use comp. Aesch. Lum. 33 partevopat yap ws dv jyarat Geds.’ 

TpotreppOfvar; 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 11; 2 Cor.i. 16; need not mean 
more than to be sent forward on a journey with prayers and good 
wishes. ‘The best commentary on this verse is ch. i. 11 ff. 

Lipsius again strikes out vv. 23, 24 and below in ver. 28 dv ipav 
eis tv Snaviav—a most arbitrary and unnecessary proceeding. 
The construction of the passage has been explained above and is 
quite in accordance with St. Paul’s style, and the desire to pass 
further west and visit Spain is not in any way inconsistent with 
the desire to visit Rome. The existence of a community there 
did not at all preclude him from visiting the city, or from 
preaching in it; but it would make it less necessary for him to 
remain long. On the other hand, the principal argument against 
the genuineness of the passage, that St. Paul never did visit Spain 
(on which see below ver. 28), is most inconclusive ; a forger would 
never have interpolated a passage in order to suggest a visit to 
Spain which had never taken place. But all such criticism iails 


412 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS  [XV. 24-27, 


absolutely to realize the width and boldness of St. Paul’s schemes, 
He must carry the message of the Gospel ever further. Nothing 
will stop him but the end of his own life or the barrier of the 
ocean. 

25. St. Paul now mentions a further reason which will cause 
some delay in his visit to Rome, and his missionary journey to 
Spain. 

StaxovGy tots aylow: cf, 2 Cor. viii. 4 rhv Kxowwviav rhs diaxovias 
ris eis rovs dyiovs. The expression ‘ ministering to the saints’ has 
become almost a technical expression in St. Paul for the contribu- 
tions made by the Gentile Christians to the Church at Jerusalem. 

26. ed8dxnoav implies that the contribution was voluntary, and 
made with heartiness and good-will: see on Rom. x. 1 (evdoxia) ; 
1 Cor. i. 215 Gal. i. 15. 

xowwviay: of a collection or contribution 2 Cor. viii. 4; ix. 13 
dnAdrnte tis Kowawvias eis av’Tovs cai eis mavras and xowwvew Rom 
xii. 13 tais xpelas TOv dylwv Kowavodrtes. 

mtwxots: cf. Gal. ii. 10 pdvov tray mraxdy ta prquovedoper, Or 
the poor Christians at Jerusalem see James ii. 2 ff.; Renan, Azsé 
des Origines, &c. vol. iv. ch. 3. In Jerusalem the Sadducees, who 
were the wealthy aristocracy, were the determined opponents of 
Christianity, and there must have been in the city a very large 
class of poor who were dependent on the casual employment and 
spasmodic alms which are a characteristic of a great religious 
centre. The existence of this class is clearly implied in the 
narrative at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. There 
was from the very first a considerable body of poor dependent on 
the Church, and hence the organization of the Christian community 
with its lists (1 Tim. v. 19) and common Church fund (amé row 
cowod Ign. Ad Polyc. iv. 3) and officers for distributing alms (Acts 
vi. 1-4) must have sprung up very early, 

27. eU8éxnoav «.t.A. St. Paul emphasizes the good-will with 
which this contribution was made by repeating the word evdcxncav ; 
he then points out that in another sense it was only the repayment 
of a debt. The Churches of the Gentiles owed all the spiritual 
blessings they enjoyed to that of Jerusalem, ‘from whom is Christ 
according to the flesh,’ and they could only repay the debt by 
ministering in temporal things. 

Tveupatixois... gapkixois. Both are characteristically Pauline 
words, x Cor, ix. 11 ef npets tuiv ra mvevparixad éoreipaper, péya el 
qmeis tuay ra capkixa Ocploopev; oapxixois is used without any bad 
association. 

éxowavygav. The word xovavéw, of which the meaning is of course ‘ to 
be a sharer or participator in,’ may be used either of the giver or of the 
receiver. The giver shares with the receiver by giving contributions, so Rom, 


xii. 13 (quoted on ver. 26); the receiver with the giver by receiving contri- 
butions, so here. The normal construction in the N. T. is as here with the 


XV. 27, 28.] THE APOSTLE’S PLANS 413 


dative : once (Heb. ii. 14) it is used with the genitive, and this construction is 
common in the O. T. (Lft. on Gal. vi. 6). 


The contributions for the poor in Jerusalem are mentioned in 
Rom. xv. 26, 27; 1 Cor. xvi. 1-3; 2 Cor.ix. 1 ff; Acts xxiv. 17, and 
form the subject of the ablest and most convincing section in 
Paley’s Horae Paulinae. Without being in any way indebted to 
one another, and each contributing some new element, all the 
different accounts fit and dovetail into one another, and thus imply 
that they are all historical. ‘For the singular evidence which this 
passage affords of the genuineness of the Epistle, and what is more 
‘mportant, as it has been impugned, of this chapter in particular, 
see Paley’s Horae Paulinae, chap. ii. No. 1.’ Jowett, ad /oc., and 
for some further reff. see Introd. § 4. 

28. émtehéoas ... oppayiodpevos. St. Paul resumes his argu- 
Ment and states his plans after the digression he has just made 
on what lies in the immediate future. With émredéoas (a Pauline 
word), cf. Phil. i. 6; it was used especially of the fulfilment of 
teligious rites (Heb. ix, 6 and in classical authors), and coupled 
with Aeroupyyoa above, suggests that St. Paul looks upon these 
contributions of the Gentile communities as a solemn religious 
offering and part of their edxapiria for the benefits received. 

opaytodpevos, ‘having set the seal of authentication on.’ The 
_ seal was used as an official mark of ownership: hence especially 
the expression ‘the seal of baptism’ (2 Cor, i. 22; Eph. i. 13; 
see on iv. 11). Here the Apostle implies that by taking the con- 
tributions to Jerusalem, and presenting them to the Church, he puts 
the mark on them (as a steward would do), showing that they are 
the fruit to the Church of Jerusalem of those spiritual blessings 
(mvevpatixa) which through him had gone forth to the Gentile 
world. 

eis Thy Zmaviav, It has been shown above that it is highly prob- 
able that St. Paul should have desired to visit Spain, and that therefore 
nothing in these verses throws any doubt on the authenticity of the 
chapter as a whole or of any portions of it. A further question 
arises, Was the journey ever carried out? Some fresh light is 
perhaps thrown on the question by Professor Ramsay’s book Zhe 
Church and the Empire. If his arguments are sound, there is 
no reason to suppose that if St. Paul was martyred at Rome 
(as tradition seems to suggest) he must necessarily have suffered 
in what is ordinarily called the Neronian persecution. He might 
have been beheaded either in the later years of Nero’s reign or 
even under Vespasian. So that, if we are at liberty to believe 
that he survived his first imprisonment, there is no need to compress, 
as has been customary, the later years of his missionary activity. 

It is on these assumptions easier to find room for the Spanish 
journey. Have we evidence for it? Dismissing later writers who 


414 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’  [XV. 28-80. 


seem to have had no independent evidence, our authorities are 
reduced to two, the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, and 
Clement of Rome. We cannot lay much stress on the former; it 
is possible perhaps that the writer had independent knowledge, but 
it is certainly more probable that he is merely drawing a conclu- 
sion, and not quite a correct one, from this Epistle: the words are 
sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. The 
passage in Clement (§ 5) runs as follows: TaiAos tropovqs BpaBeiov 
Unédeckev, Exrakis deapa opécas, puyadevGels, AGacGeis, kipvE yevopevos 
€y te 77 avato\j Kali ev TH Svoet, Td yevvaiov THs mioTews aUTOU KA€os 
€daBev, Sixatcoovvyny SidaEas GAov tov Kdcpov Kat emt TO Téppa THS SvdEws 
€\Oav, kal paptupnaas emt TOV Hyoupevwy, oUTas amnAAdyn TOD Kdopov Kal 
els tov Gywov témov éropetbn. This passage is much stronger, and 
Lightfoot’s note in favour of interpreting the words 16 réppa rijs 
dvucews as meaning Spain is very weighty; but is it quite certain 
that a Jew, as Clement probably was (according to Lightfoot him- 
self),speaking of St. Paul another Jew would not look upon Rome 
relatively to Jerusalem as the répua tis duces, ‘the western limit’? 
We in England might for example speak of Athens as being in the 
Eastern Mediterranean. There is also some force in Hilgenfeld’s 
argument that €\éov and paprupnoas should be taken together. For 
these reasons the question whether St. Paul ever visited Spain 
must remain very doubtful. 

29. wAnpdpatt: see on xi.1r2. St. Paul feels confident that his 
visit to Rome will result in a special gift of Christ’s blessing. He 
will confer on the Church a ydpiopua zvevparixov, and will in his turn 
be comforted by the mutual faith which will be exhibited. Cf. i. 
11, 12. 

It has been pointed out how strongly these words make for the 
authenticity and early date of this chapter. No one could possibly 
write in this manner at a later date, knowing the circumstances 
under which St. Paul actually did visit Rome. See also ver. 32 iva 
eév xapa é\Gav mpos byas dia OeAjparos cod cuvavaravowpat bpiv, 


The TR. reads with &° L &c., Vulg.-clem. Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Theodrt. 
evAoyias Tod evayyedlov Tov Xp. The words 7ov ev, tov should be omitted on 
decisive authority. 


80. The reference to his visit to Jerusalem reminds St, Paul of 
the dangers and anxieties which that implies, and leads him to 
conclude this section with an earnest entreaty to the Roman Chris- 
tians to join in prayers on his behalf. Hort (Rom. and Eph. 
pp. 42-46) points out how this tone harmonizes with the dangers 
that the Apostle apprehended (cf. Acts xx. 17-38, xxi. 13, &c.): 
‘We cannot here mistake the twofold thoughts of the Apostle’s 
mind, He is full of eager anticipation of visiting Rome with the 
full blessing of the accomplishment of that peculiar ministration, 


XV. 30-32.] THE APOSTLE’S PLANS 415 


But he is no less full of misgivings as to the probability of escaping 
with his life’ (p. 43). 

Sa THs dydanys Tod Mveduatos. That brotherly love which is one 
of the fruits of the Spirit working in us (cf. Gal. v. 22). That 
mvedua is personal is shown by the parallelism with the first clause. 

cuvaywvicacda:, ‘He breaks off afresh in an earnest entreaty to 
them to join him in an intense energy of prayer, wrestling as it were’ 
(Hort, op. c##. p. 43). They will as it were take part in the contest 
that he must fight by praying on his behalf to God, for all prayer 
is a spiritual wrestling against opposing powers. So of our Lord’s 
agony in the garden: Luke xxii. 44; Matt. xxvi. 42. Cp. Origen 
ad loc.: Vix enim invenies, ut oranti cuiguam non aliquid inanis et 
altenae cogitationts occurrat, et intentionem, qua in Deum mens dirt- 
gitur, declinet ac frangat, atque eam per ea quae non competit, raptat. 
Et ideo agon magnus est orationis, ut obsistentibus inimicis, et ora- 
hionts sensum in diversa rapientibus, fixa ad Deum semper mens stabili 
intentione contendat, ut merito possit etiam ipse dicere: cerlamen 
bonum certavi, cursum consummavt. 

81. The Apostle’s fear is double. He fears the attacks upon 
himself of the unbelieving Jews, to whom more than any other 
Christian teacher he was an object of hatred: and he is not certain 
whether the peace-offering of the Gentile Churches which he was 
bearing to Jerusalem would be accepted as such by the narrow 
Jewish Christians at Jerusalem. How strong the first feeling was 
and how amply justified the Acts of the Apostles show (Acts xx. 3, 
22; xxi. 11). 

In ver. 30 ddeAgoi is omitted by B76, Aeth., Chrys. alone, but perhaps 

correctly. In ver. 31 1% dwpogopia for d:axovia, and év ‘IepovoaAjp for els ‘I. 

are instances of Western paraphrase shared by B (BD FG). 


$2. But the prayer that the Roman Christians offer for St. Paul 
will also be a prayer for themselves. If his visit to Jerusalem be 
successful, and his peace-offering be accepted, he will come to 
Rome with stronger and deeper Christian joy. ‘After the personal 
danger and the ecclesiastical crisis of which the personal danger 
formed a part’ (Hort) he hopes to find rest in a community as yet 
untroubled by such strife and distraction. 
cuvavarraucwpar, ‘I may rest and refresh my spirit with you.’ 
Only used here in this sense (but later in Hegesippus af. Eus. 
H. E. IV. xxii. 2). Elsewhere it is used of sleeping together 
(Is. xi. 6). The unusual character of the word may have been the 
cause of its omission in B and the alteration in some Western MSS. 
(see below). 
There are several variations of reading in this verse: 
(1) SAC, Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat. read €A@dy... cuvavaratcwpu with 


some variation in the position of ¢A@wy (after iva 8, Boh., Orig.-lat.; after 
xapg AC agreeing in this with other authorities), All later MSS. with the 


416 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XV. $2-XVI.1L 


Western group read €A@m and insert af before cvvavaratcwpa. B is alone in 
having €A@m and omitting ovvavaratowpa ipiv, but receives support in the 
reading of some Western authorities; DE read dvaywtw ped’ tuav, F G dva- 
Yoyo p. b., agreeing with most Latin authorities, refrigerer vobiscum. 

(2) For da GeArjparos Geo} (ACLP, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm., Orig.-lat, 
Chrys. Thdrt.), 8 Ambrst. have 8. 0. "Ingo Xpicrod, DEF G (with defg), 
fuld. Xptorov "Inaot, B Kupiov “Incod. Lightfoot (On a fresh Revision, &c 


pp. 106 ff.) suggests that the original reading was @eAjparos used absolutely 
of the Divine will: ef. Rom. ii. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 12. See also his note on 
Ign. Eph. § 20, Rom. § 1 (where some authorities add vod @eod, others 
domini), Smyrn. §§ 1, 11. Elsewhere in St. Paul the expression always is 
9éAnya @cov, except once, Eph. v. 17 70 GéAnjpa Tod Kupiov, 


83. & Sé cds Tis eipyyys: cf. ver. 5. St. Paul concludes his 
request for a prayer with a prayer of his own for them. ‘ Peace,’ 
a keynote of the Epistle, is one of his last thoughts. 


AFG and some minuscules omit dyjy. On the importance ascribed to 
this word by some commentators see the Introduction, § 9. 


PERSONAL GREETINGS, 


XVI. 1-16. J commend to you Phoebe our sister. Receive 
her as becometh members of a Christian Church. For she 
has stood by many others, and myself as well (vv. 1, 2). 

Greet Prisca and Aquila. Greet all those whose names 
or persons I know, who are members of your community 
(vv. 3-16). 


1. ouviornpt. The ordinary word for to ‘commend,’ ‘introduce’; 
see On iii. 5, a derivative of which appears in the phrase everarial 
émorokat (2 Cor. iii. 1; for its use in the later ecclesiastical writings 
see Suicer, Zhesaurus). These letters played a very large part in 
the organization of the Church, for the tie of hospitality (cf. xii. 13), 
implving also the reception to communion, was the great bond 
which united the separate local Churches together, and some pro- 
tection became necessary against imposture. 

oiByv. Nothing is otherwise known of Phoebe, nor can we 
learn anything from the name. She was presumably the bearer of 
this letter. 

Sidxovov, ‘a deaconess.’ The only place in which this office is re- 
ferred to by name in the N. T, (for 1 Tim. iii. 11, v. 3 ff. cannot be 
quoted). The younger Pliny (Zp. X. xcvi. 8) speaks of mimsirae: 
quo magis necessarium credidt ex duabus ancillis, quae minisirae 
dicebantur, quid esset vert et per tormenta quaerere. ‘They do not 
appear elsewhere to be referred to in any certain second-century 
writing ; but constant reference to them occurs in the Afoséoliu 


XVI. 1, 2.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 417 


Constitutions, in the earlier bool.s under the name of 8:dxovos (ii. 26; 
ili. 15), in the later of Saxénoca (viii. 19, 20, 28). Of the exact 
relation of the ‘deaconess’ to the ‘ widows’ (1 Tim. v. 3) it is not 
necessary to speak, as we have no sufficient evidence for so early 
a date; it is quite clear that later they were distinct as bodies, and 
that the widows were considered inferior to the deaconesses (Afos?. 
Const. iii. 7); it is probable however that the deaconesses were for 
the most part chosen from the widows. That the reference to 
a ‘deaconess’ is in no sense an anachronism may be inferred both 
from the importance of 8:axovia in the early Church, which had quite 
clearly made it necessary for special male officials to be appointed, 
and from the separate and secluded life of women. From the very 
beginning of Christianity—more particularly in fact at the beginning 
—there must have been a want felt for women to perform for 
women the functions which the deacons performed for men. 
Illustrations of this need in baptism, in visiting the women’s 
part of a house, in introducing women to the deacon or bishop, 
may be found in the Ajostolical Constitutions (iii. 15, &c.). So 
much is clear. An office in the Church of this character, we 
may argue on @ frior? grounds, there must have been; but an 
order in the more ecclesiastical sense of the term need not have 
existed. é:axovos is technical, but need hardly be more so than is 
mpooratts in ver. 2. (The arguments of Lucht against the au- 
thenticity of portions of these two verses are examined very fully 
by Mangold, Der Romerbrief und seine geschichilichen Vorausselzung, 
pp. 136 ff.) 

Tis exxAnotas THs év Keyxpeats. Cenchreae was the port of Corinth 
on the Saronic Gulf. During St. Paul’s stay at Corinth that city 
had become the centre of missionary activity throughout all Achaia 
(cf. 2 Cor. i. 1), and the port towards Ephesus, a place where there 
must have been many Jews living, could easily be a centre of the 
Christian Church. Its position would afford particularly an oppor- 
tunity for the exercise by Phoebe of the special duties of hospitality. 

2. dfiws tay dyiwv, ‘in a manner worthy of the saints,’ i.e. ‘ of 
the Church.’ Not only to provide for her wants, but to admit her 
to every spiritual privilege as ‘in the Lord? 

™pootdris, a ‘succourer’ or ‘helper’; this almost technical 
word is suggested by mapacrre. It is the feminine form of zpo- 
oratns, used like the Latin pasronus for the legal representative of 
the foreigner. In Jewish communities it meant the legal repre- 
sentative or wealthy patron: see Schiirer, Dee Gemetnde-Verfas- 
sung, &c., Ins. 31: enOade xerte | faic Mpoctatuc | ocioc ezHceN | ETH OB 
en eipn | Koimucic coy, Cf. also C. ZG. 5361. We also find the word 
used of an office-bearer in a heathen religious association, see 
Foucart, Associations Religieuses. p. 202, Ins. 20, line 34 (= C. 2. G. 
126) Soxipalérw 8€ 6 mpoorarys Kui 6 apxicpamotis Kai 6 ypappareds Kal 


418 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS’ [XVI. 2-4. 


of rata eat oivdinn. Here the expression suggests that Phoebe 
was a person of some wealth and position who was thus able 
to act as patroness of a small and struggling community. 

8. Mpicxav kal "Akdhav. So the MSS. here by preponderating 
authority for MpioxAd\ax.’A. Priscilla is a diminutive for Prisca, and 
both are Roman names. 


In Acts xviii. a the reading is "AxvAay ... «at UpiomAAav yuvaixa aibrov, 
in ver. 18 UpioxiAda wal ’Axddas; in 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ’AxvAas «al Upicxa (so 
& BM P, Boh., butA CDEFG, &c., Vulg. Syrr. Upion:AAa) ; in 2 Tim. iv. 19 
Tpicxav kat ’Axvday (by preponderating authority). The fact that Prisca is 
so often mentioned first suggests that she was the more important oi the two. 


4. oitwes ... Tov Eautdy tTpdxyov «.7.A. probably refers to some 
great danger which they had run on his behalf. It may have been 
the great tumult at Ephesus, although this was somewhat recent. 
If so the danger then incurred may have been the reason that they 
had left that city and returned for a time to Rome. The special 
reference to the Churches of the Gentiles perhaps arises from the 
fact that, owing to their somewhat nomadic life, they were well 
known to many Christian Churches, 


Aquila and Priscilla. 


The movements of Aquila and Priscilla have been considered to be so 
complicated as to throw doubts on the authenticity of this section of the 
Epistle, or to suggest that it was addressed not to the Church at Rome, but 
to the Church of Ephesus. 

From Acts xviii. 1, 2 we learn that Aquila was a Jew of Pontus. He and 
his wife Prisca had been compelled to leave Rome in 52 A.D. by the decree 
of Claudius. They retired to Corinth, where they first became acquainted 
with St. Paul. With him they went to Ephesus, where they remained some 
time; they were there when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, 
and had a church in their house (doma{eras bpads év Kupiw moAAd ’AnvAas 
«al Ipicxa adv TH Kat’ olxov av’t@v éxxdAnoia I Cor. xvi. 19). This Epistle 
was written probably about twelve months before the Epistle to the 
Romans. In 2 Tim. iv. 19, written in all probability at least eight years 
later, they appear again at Ephesus, 

Now, is not the life ascribed to them too nomadic? And is not the 
coincidence of the church in their house remarkable? The answer is that 
a nomadic life was the characteristic of Jews at that day, and was certainly 
a characteristic of Aquila and Priscilla (Lightfoot, Bzblical Essays, p. 299, and 
Renan, Les Apétres, pp.96, 97, Zahn, Skzzzen, p.169). We know thatalthough 
Aquila was a Jew of Pontus, yet he and his wife lived, within the space of 
a few years, at Rome, at Corinth, and at Ephesus. Is it then extremely 
improbable that they should travel in after years, probably for the sake of 
their business? And if it were so, would they not be likely to make their 
house, wherever they were, a place in which Christians could meet together# 

On 4 priori grounds we cannot argue against the possibility of these 
changes. Are there any positive arguments for connecting them with the 
Roman Church? De Rossi, in the course of his archaeological investigations, 
has suggested two traces of their influence, both of which deserve investi 
gation. 


XVI. 4] PERSONAL GREETINGS 419 


(i) Amongst the older churches of Rome is one on the Aventime bearmg 
the name of St. Prisca, which gives a title to one of the Roman Cardinals. 
Now there is considerable evidence for connecting this with the names of 
Aquila and Priscilla. In the Lifer Pontificalis, in the life of Leo IIIf 
(795-816), it is described as the ‘titulus Aquilae et Priscae” (Duchesne, 
£2. Pont. 1. p. 20) ; in the legendary Acts of St. Prisca (which apparently 
date from the tenth century) it is stated that the body of St. Prisca was 
translated from the place on the Ostian road where she had been buried, and 
transferred to the church of St. Aquila and Prisca on the Aventine (Aca 
Sanctorum, Jan. Tom. ii. p. 187 ef deduxerunt ipsam ad uriem Romam 
cum hymnis et caniicis spiritualibus, tuxta Aroum Romanum tn ecclesia 
sanctorum Martyrum Aquilae et Priscae), and the tradition is put very 
clearly in an imscription apparently of the tenth century which formerly 
stood over the door of the church (C. Js. Chrzst. ii. p. 443): 

Haee domus est Aquilae seu Priscae Virginis Almae 
Quos lupe Paule tuo ore uchis domino 

Hic Petre divini Triiuetbas fercula verbi 
Sepius hocce loco sacrifians domino. 

Many later testimonies are referred to by De Rossi, but they need not here 
be cited. 

For the theory that this church is on the site of the house of Prisca and 

ila, De Rossi finds additional support in a bronze diploma found in 1776 
in the garden of the church bearing the name of G. Marius Pudens Cor- 
nelianus: for in the legendary Acts of Pudens, Pudenziana, and Praxedis, 
Priscilla is stated to have been the mother of Pudens (Aca Sanct. Mai. 
Tom. iv. p. 297), and this implies some connexion between the names of 
Aquila and Priscilla and the family of Pudens. 

The theory is a plausible one, but will hardly at present stand examination. 
In the first place the name of Aquila and Priscilla (or Prisca) is not the 
oldest bome by the church ; from the fourth to the eighth century it seems 
always to have been the Atu/us S. Priscae (see Liber Ponisficalis, <d. 
Duchesne, i. 501, 517), and although the origm of this name is itself 
doubtful, it is hardly likely that if the locality had borne the name of Aquila 
and Priscilla, that name would first have been lost and then revived. Itis 
much more probable that the later name is an attempt to connect the biblical 
account with this spot and to explain the origin of the name of Pnsca. 

Nor is the second piece of evidence of any greater weight. The acts of 
Pudens and his daughters, supposed to be narrated by the person called 
St. Pastor, who was 2 contemporary of Pius the bishop and addressed his 
letters to Timothy, are clearly legendary, and little or no stress can be laid 
on the mention of Priscilla as the mother of Pudens. The object of the Acta 
is in fact to invent a history for martyrs whose names were known, and who 
were for some reason grouped together. But why were they thus grouped? 
The reason probably is given in the statement at the end, that they were 
buried in the cemetery of Priscilla. These names would probably be found 
in the fourth century in that cemetery, attached to graves close to one 
another, and would form the groundwork of the de¢/a. There may still be 
some connexion between the names, which may or may not be discovered, 
bat there is not at present any historical evidence for connecting the fitu/us 
St. Priscae with the Aquila and Priscilla of the N.T. (see de Rossi, Aull. 
Arch. Christ. Ser-i. No. 5 (1367), p. 45 f©) 

(ai) A second line of argument seems more fruitful. The explorations of 
De Rossi in the Coemztertum Priscillae, outside the Porta Salaria, have 
resulted in the discovery that as the Coemeterium Domitiliae stams from 
a burying-place of Domitilla and her family, so that of Priscilla originates in 
the burying-place of Acilius Glabrio and other members of the Acilian gens. 
This seems to corroborate the statement of Dio Cassius (Ixvii. 14) that the 

Eea 


420 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 4, 5. 


Acilius Glabrio who was consul with Trajan in A. D. 91 was a Christian and 
died as such, and implies that Christianity had penetrated into this as into 
other leading Roman families. Now the connexion with the subject immediately 
before us is as follows. The same researches have shown that a name of 
the females of the Acilian gens is Priscilla or Prisca. For instance, in one 
inscription we read: 
M’ ACILIUS V..eee 
c. Vv. 
PRISCILLA..C 


Aquila was a Jew of Pontus: how then does it happen that his wife, if not 
he himself, bore a Roman name? The answer seems to be suggested by 
these discoveries. They were freedmen of a member of the Acilian gens, 
as Clemens the Roman bishop was very probably the freedman of Flavius 
Clemens. The name Prisca or Priscilla would naturally come to an ad- 
herent of the family. The origin of the name Aquila is more doubtful, but 
it too might be borne by a Roman freedman. If this suggestion be correct, 
then both the names of these two Roman Christians and the existence of 
Christianity in a leading Roman family are explained. 

Two other inscriptions may be quoted, as perhaps of interest. The first 
is clearly Christian : 

AQUILIAE PRISCAE IN PACE 


The second C. J. Z. vi. 12273 may be so. The term Renata might suggest 
that it is but also might be Mithraic: 


D. M. 

AQUILIA - RENATA 
QVAE-V-A-N... 
SE - VIVA « POSVIT - SIBI 
CVRANTE - AQVILIO - IVSTO 
ALVMNO -« ET + AQVILIO 
PRISCO - FRATRE 


The argument is not demonstrative, but seems to make the return of 
Aquila and Priscilla to Rome, and their permanent connexion with the 
Roman Church, probable. See De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iv. 
No. 6 (1888-9), p. 129 Aguila e Prisca et gli Acilit Glabriont. 

Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. pp. 12-14), following a suggestion made by 
Dr. Plumptre (Biblical Studies, p. 417), points out that it is a curious fact 
that in four out of the six places in which the names occur that of the wile is 
the first mentioned. He connects the name with the cemetery of St. Prisca, 
and suggests that Prisca was herself a member of some distinguished Roman 
family. He points out that only Aquila is called a Jew from Pontus, not 
his wife. There is nothing inconsistent in this theory with that of the 
previous argument; and if it be true much is explained. It may however be 
suggested that for a noble Roman lady to travel about with a Jewish husband 
engaged in mercantile or even artisan work is hardly probable; and that the 
theory which sees in them freed members of a great household is perhaps 
the most probable. 


5. kat Thy Kat’ otkov atrav éxxAnolay. There is no decisive 
evidence until the third century of the existence of special buildings 
used for churches. The references seem all to be to places in 
private houses, sometimes very probably houses of a large size. In 
the N.T. we have first of all (Acts xii. 12) the house of Mary, the 
mother of John, where many were collected together and praying. 
Col. iv. 15 domdoacbe rods év Aaodixcig adeAdovs, kai Nuppay, wai ri 


XVI. 5.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 421 


kar’ oikoy adta@y éxcAnoiav: Philemon 2 «ai tj Kar’ oikdy cov éxkAnoia: 
besides 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Ata later date we have Clem. Recog. x. 71 
Theophilus, domus suae ingentem bastlicam ecclestae nomine consecraret: 
De Rossi, Roma Sott. i. p. 209 Collegium quod est in domo Sergtae 
Paulinae. So in Rome several of the oldest churches appear to 
have been built on the sites of houses used for Christian worship. 
So perhaps San Clemente is on the site of the house of T. Flavius 
Clemens the consul (see Lightfoot, Clement. p. 94). 

There is no reason to suppose that this Church was the meeting- 
place of all the Roman Christians; similar bodies seem to be 
implied in vv. 14,15. We may compare Acta Lustint Martyris § 2 
(Ruinart) where however the speaker is of course intentionally 
vague: Quaesivit Praefectus, quem tn locum Christiant conventrent. 
Cui respondtt Iustinus, eo unumquemgue convenire quo vellet ac posset. 
An, ingutt, existimas omnes nos in eumdem locum convenire solitos P 
Minime res ita se habet... Tune pracfectus: Age, inquit, dicas, 
quem in locum conventatis, et discipulos tuos congreges. Respondit 
Lustinus: Ego prope domum Martini cutusdam, ad balneum cogno- 
mento Timiotinum, hactenus manst. 

*Ematvetos. Of him nothing is known: the name is not an un- 
common one and occurs in inscriptions from Asia Minor, C. JZ. G. 
2953 (from Ephesus), 3903 (from Phrygia). The following in- 
scription from Rome is interesting, C./.Z. vi. 17171 DIS- MAN | 
EPAENETI (sc) | EPAENETI.F | EPHESIO | T- MVNIVS | PRIS- 
CIANVS | AMICO SVO. 

dmapx} Tis “Acias: i.e. one of the first converts made in the 
Roman province of Asia: cp. 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ot8are rip oikiay Stepava, 
Gre coriy amapxy THs ’Ayatas, kai eis Staxoviav Tois dytots ératay éavTovs, 
On the importance of first converts see Clem. Rom. § xlii xara yxopas 
ovv kai mets Knpvocortes Kabictavoy Tas amapxas alta, Soxipdoavres TO 
mvevpatt, eis emeoKdmous Kal StaKdvovs TOV peAASVT@Y TLOTEVELY. 

This name caused great difficulty to Renan, ‘What! had all the 
Church of Ephesus assembled at Rome?’ ‘All’ when analyzed is 
found to mean three persons of whom two had been residents at 
Rome, and the third may have been a native of Ephesus but is 
only said to have belonged to the province of Asia (cf. Lightfoot, 
Biblical Essays, p. 301). How probable it was that there should 
be foreigners in Rome attached to Christianity may be illustrated 
from the Acts of Justin which were quoted in the note on an 
earlier portion of the verse. These give an account of the. 
martyrdom of seven persons, Justin himself, Charito, Charitana, 
Euelpistus, Hierax, Liberianus, and Paeon. Of these Justin we 
know was a native of Samaria, and had probably come to Rome 
from Ephesus, Euelpistus who was a slave of the Emperor was 
a native of Cappadocia, and Hierax was of Iconium in Phrygia, 
This was about roo years later. 


422 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (XVI. 5-7. 


*Aolas is supported by preponderating authority (NABCDFG, Valg. 
Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst.) against ’Ayatas (LP &c., 
Syrr., Chrys. Theodrt.). 

For the idea of illustrating this chapter from inscriptions we are of course 
indebted to Bishop Lightfoot’s able article on Caesar's household (Philippians, 
p-169). Since that paper was written, the appearance of a portion of vol. vi. 
of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, that, namely, containing the inscriptions 
of the city of Rome, has both provided us with more extensive material and 
also placed it in a more convenient form for reference. We have therefore 
gone over the ground again, and either added new illustrations or given 
references to the Latin Corpus for inscriptions quoted by Lightfoot from 
older collections. Where we have not been able to identify these we have 
not, except in a few cases, thought it necessary to repeat his references 
A large number of these names are found in Columbaria containing the 
monuments and ashes of members of the imperial household during the first 
century: these special collections are kept together in the Corpus (vi. 3926- 
8397). There is also a very large section devoted to other names belong- 
ing to the domus Augusti (vi. 8398-gi01). A complete use of these 
materials will not be possible until the publication of the Zndices to vol. vi. 
For a discussion of the general bearing of these references, see Introduction, 
§ 9. 

6. Mapiav (which is the correct reading) may like Mapidp be 
Jewish, but it may also be Roman. In favour of the latter alter- 
native in this place it may be noticed that apparently in other cases 
where St. Paul is referring to Jews he distinguishes them by calling 
them his kinsmen (see on ver. 7). The following inscription from 
Rome unites two names in this list, C.4.Z. vi. 22223 D-M-| 
MARIAE | AMPLIATAE cef. ; the next inscription is from the house- 
hold, ib. 4394 MARIAE-M-L-XANTHE | NYMPHE- FEC: DE: SVO. 

7tts Woda exomiagey cis buds. This note is added, not for the 
sake of the Roman Church, but as words of praise for Maria 
herself. a 

Mapiay is read by A BC P, Boh. Arm. ; Maprap by SD EF GL, &c., Chrys. 
The evidence for els iuas, which is a difficult reading, is preponderating 
(SN ABCP, Syrr. Boh.), and it is practically supported by the Western 
group (D EFG, Vulg.), which have év ipiv. The correction els judas is read 
by L, Chrys. and later authorities. 


7. ’AvSpévuxov: a Greek name found among members of the 
imperial household. The following inscription contains the names 
of two persons mentioned in this Epistle, both members of the 
household, C. 7. Z. vi. 5326 DIS - MANIBVS | C. JVLIVS - HERMES 
VIX - ANN: XXXIII- M-V | DIEB- XIII | C- IVLIVS: ANDRONICVS 
CONLIBERTVS : FEC | BENE: MERENTI- DE: SE: see also §325 and 
11626 where it is the name of a slave. 

"louviay: there is some doubt as to whether this name is mas- 
culine, “Iowias or "Iovmds, a contraction of Junianus, or feminine 
Junia. Junia is of course a common Roman name, and in that 
case the two would probably be husband and wife; Junias on the 
other hand is less usual as a man’s name, but seems to re- 
present a form of contraction common in this list, as Patrobas, 


XVI. 7.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 423 


Hermas, Olympas. If, as is probable, Andronicus and Junias are 
included among the Apostles (see below) then it is more probable 
that the name is masculine, although Chrysostom does not appear 
to consider the idea of a female apostle impossible: ‘And indeed 
to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst 
these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But 
they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. 
Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be 
even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle !’ 

Tods ouyyeveis pou. St. Paul almost certainly means by ‘kinsmen,’ 
fellow-countrymen, and not relations. The word is used in this 
sense in ix. 3, and it would be most improbable that there should 
be so many relations of St. Paul amongst the members of a distant 
Church (vv. 7, 11) and also in Macedonia (ver. 21); whereas it is 
specially significant and in accordance with the whole drift of the 
Epistle that he should specially mention as his kinsmen those 
members of a Gentile Church who were Jews. 

kat guvatxpahdtous pou. Probably to be taken literally. Al- 
though St. Paul had not so far suffered any long imprisonment, he 
had certainly often been imprisoned for a short time as at Philippi, 
2 Cor. xi. 23 év qvAakais mepiocorepws; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. v 
éntaxis Seopa dopéoas. Nor is it necessary that the word should 
mean that Andronicus and Junias had suffered at the same time as 
St. Paul; he might quite well name them fellow-prisoners if they 
had like him been imprisoned for Christ’s sake. Metaphorical 
explanations of the words are too far-fetched to be probable. 

oirwés eiow emionpor év tots &moordhors may mean either (1) 
well known to the Apostolic body, or (2) distinguished as Apostles. 
In favour of the latter interpretation, which is probably correct, are 
the following arguments. (i) The passage was apparently so 
taken by all patristic commentators. (ii) It is in accordance with 
the meaning of the words. émionpos, lit.‘ stamped,’ ‘ marked,’ would 
be used of those who were selected from the Apostolic body as 
‘distinguished,’ not of those known to the Apostolic body, or 
looked upon by the Apostles as illustrious; it may be translated 
‘those of mark among the Apostles.’ (iii) It is in accordance with 
the wider use of the term améorodos. Bp. Lightfoot pointed out 
(Galatians, p. 93) that this word was clearly used both in a narrow 
sense of ‘the twelve’ and also in a wider sense which would include 
many others. His views have been corroborated and strengthened 
by the publication of the Didache. The existence of these ‘Apostles,’ 
itinerant Christian Evangelists, in Rome will suggest perhaps one 
of the methods by which the city had been evangelized. 

ot Kai mpd éuod yeydvaow év Xpiorw. Andronicus and Junias had 
been converted before St. Paul: they therefore belonged to the 
earliest days of the Christian community; perhaps even they were 


424 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS  [XVE. 7; 8. 


of those who during the dispersion after the death of Stephen 
began almost immediately to spread the word in Cyprus and Syria 
(Acts xi. 19). As Dr. Weymouth points out (On the Rendering into 
English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect, p. 26) the perfect should 
here be translated ‘ were.’ 

‘It is utterly amazing,’ he writes, ‘that in Rom. xvi. 7 of wat apd éuod 
yeyovaow éy Xp. is rendered in the RV. “who also have been in Christ before 
mé.” ‘The English idiom is here simply outraged. What officer in our 
Navy or Army would not stare at the BapBapos who should say of a senior 
officer, ‘‘ He has been in the Service before me”? ‘ He was in the Navy 
before me” is the only correct English form. ... The English mind fastens 
on the idea of time defined by “ before me,” and therefore uses the simple 
Past... . The Greek Perfect is correctly employed, because it is intended to 
convey, and does convey, the idea that they are still in Christ, while the 
English “ have been” suggests precisely the contrary.’ 


8. ’ApmAtaros is the more correct reading for the abbreviated 
form "ApmdcGs which occurs in the TR. This is 2 common 
Roman slave name, and as such occurs in inscriptions of the imperial 
household. C./. Z. vi. 4899 AMPLIATVS | RESTITVTO - FRATRI| 
SVO - FECIT - MERENTI: 5154 C. VIBIVS - FIRMVS « €C | VIBIO = 
AMPLIATO | PATRONO - SVO, &c., besides inscriptions quoted by Lft. 
But there is considerable evidence for connecting this name more 
closely with the Christian community in Rome. In the cemetery 
of Domitilla, now undoubtedly recognized as one of the earliest of 
Christian catacombs, is a chamber now known by the name of 
‘Ampliatus’ owing to an inscription which it contains. This 
chamber is very early: pre-Christian in character if not in origin. 
The cell over which the name of Ampliatus is inscribed is a later 
insertion, which, from the style of its ornament, is ascribed to the 
end of the first or beginning of the second century. The inscription 
is in bold, well-formed letters of the sarse date. Not far off is another 
inscription, not earlier than the end of the second century, to 
members of apparently the same family. The two inscriptions are 
AMPLIAT[I] and AVRELIAE + BONIFATIAE | CONIVGI - INCOM- 
PARABILI | VERAE CASTITATIS FEMINAE | QVAE - VIXIT - ANN + 
XXV-M-H | DIEB- Ill - HOR- VI | AVREL+ AMPLIATVS CvM | 
GORDIANO - FILIO. The boldness of the lettering im the first 
inscription is striking. The personal name without any other 
distinction suggests a slave. Why then should any one in these 
circumstances receive the honour of an elaborately painted tomb? 
The most plausible explanation is that he was for some reason 
very prominent in the earliest Roman Church. The later inscription 
clearly suggests that there was a Christian family bearing this 
name; and the connexion with Domitlla seems to show that here 
we have the name of a slave or freedman through whom Christianity 
had penetrated into a second great Roman household. See de 
Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iii. vol. 6 (1881), pp. 57-743 


PERSONAL GREETINGS 425 


_Jemenacum March 4, 1884, p. 289; the inscription is just re- 
ferred to by Lightfoot, Clement. i. p. 39.- 

9. OipBavéds: a common Roman slave name found among 
members of the household, C. Z. LZ. vi. 4237 (quoted by Lft. from 
Murat. 920. 1) VRBANVS + LYDES - AVG « L« DISPENS | INMVNIS - 
DAT - HERMAE - FRATRI - ET | CILICAE - PATRI: Cf. 5604, 5605, © 
and others, quoted by Lift. (Grut. p. 589. ro, p. 1070. 1). 

tév ouvepydv ijpav. Where St. Paul is speaking of personal 
friends he uses the singular rév dyamyrév pov: here he uses the 
plural because Urbanus was a fellow-worker with all those who 
worked for Christ. 

Erdxuv: a rare Greek name, but found among members of the 
imperial household: C. 7. Z. vi. 8607 D. M. | M. VLPIO + AVG ° L | 
EROTI | AB - EPISTVLIS + GRAECIS | EPAPHRODITVS | ET - 
STACHYS | CAESAR-N-SER | FRATRI- KARISSIMO- ET | CLAVDIA 
- FORMIANA | FECERVNT: cf. also inscriptions quoted by Lft. 

10. *AmeAAjjy. Again a name borne by members of the house- 
hold and by Jews: amongst others by the famous tragic actor. 
See the instance quoted by Lft. and cf. Hor. Sa#. I. v. 100 Credat 
Ludaeus Apella, non ego. 

tov Sdxipoy: cf. 1 Cor. xi. 19; 2 Cor. x. 18; xiii. 7. One who 
has shown himself an approved Christian. 

tods €x Tav "AptotoBovAov. The explanation of this name given 
by Lft. bears all the marks of probability. The younger Aristo- 
bulus was a grandson of Herod the Great, who apparently lived 
and died in Rome in a private station (Jos. Bell. Jud. Il. xi. 6; 
Antig. XX. i. 2); he was a friend and adherent of the Emperor 
Claudius. His household would naturally be oi ’ApsoroSotdov, and 
would presumably contain a considerable number of Jews and 
other orientals, and consequently of Christians. If, as is probable, 
Aristobulus was himself dead by this time, his household would 
probably have become united with the imperial household. It 
would, however, have continued to bear his name, just as we find 
servants of Livia’s household who had come from that of Maecenas 
called Maecenatiani (C. 7. Z. vi. 4016, 4032), those from the house- 
hold of Amyntas, Amyntiani (4035, cf. 8738): so also Agrippiani, 
Germaniciani. We might in the same way have Arsstobuliani (cf. 
Lft. Pf?. pp. 172, 3). 

11. “HpoSiwva tov cuyyevh pov. A mention of the household of 
Aristobulus is followed by a name which at once suggests the 
Herod family, and is specially stated to have been that of a Jew. 
This seems to corroborate the aryument of the preceding note. 

Tous €k tay Napkiooou, ‘the household of Narcissus,’ ‘ Narcis- 
siani.. The Narcissus in question was very possibly the well- 
known freedman of that name, who had been put to death by 
Agrippina shortly after the accession of Nero some three or four 


426 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 11-18. 


years before (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1; Dio Cass. lx. 34). His slaves 
would then in all probability become the property of the Emperor, 
and would help to swell the imperial household. The name is 
common, especially among slaves and freedmen, ef, C. Z. Z. vi. 4123 
(in the household of Livia), 4346, 5206 HELICONIS NARCISSI | 
AVGVSTIANI | : 22875 NARCISSVS+ AVG: LIB. Lft. quotes also 
the two names Ti. Claudius Narcissus (see below), Ti. lulius Nar- 
cissus from Muratori, and also the form Narcissianus, TI - CLAVDIO - 
SP - F - NARCISSIANO (Murat. p. 1150. 4). The following inscrip- 
tion belongs to a somewhat later date: C.J. Z. vi. 9035 D. M. | 
T + FLAVIVS: AVG: LIB | NARCISSVS- FECIT « SIBI | ET - COELIAE + 
SP - FILIAE | IERIAE - CONIVGI- SVAE... , and lower down T 
FLAVIVS - AVG - LIB + FIRMVS « NARCISSIANVS | RELATOR + AVC- 
TIONVM - MONVMENTVM - REFECIT. See also 9035 a. (Lightfoot, 
Phil. p. 173.) 

Dr. Plumptre (Biblical Studies, p. 428) refers to the following interesting 
inscription. It may be found in C. Z. Z. v. 154* being reputed to have come 
from Ferrara. D.M.| CLAVDIAE | DICAEOSYNAE | TI * CLAVDIVS | NAR- 
CISSVS | LIB. AEID. COIV | PIENTISSIMAE | ET FRVGALISSI | B. M. Tiberius 
Claudius suggests the first century, but the genuineness of the Ins. is not 
sufficiently attested. The editor of the fifth volume of the Corpus writes : 
Testimonia auctorum aut incertorum...aut fraudulentorum de loco cum 
parum defendant titulum cum exclust, quamquam fiert potest ut sit 
genuinus nec multum corruptus. The name Dicaeosyne is curious but is 
found elsewhere C. /. Z. iii. 2391; vi. 25866: x. 649. There is nothing dis- 
tinctively Christian about it. 





12. Tpdpaway kai Tpupdcay are generally supposed to have been 
two sisters. Amongst inscriptions of the household we have 
4866 D. M.| VARIA - TRYPHOSA | PATRONA - ET | M. EPPIVS - 
CLEMENS |: 5035 D. M. | TRYPHAENA | VALERIA + TRYPHAENA 
| MATRI- B- M- F-+ ET | VALERIUS - FVTIANVS (quoted by Lft. 
from Acc. di Archeol. xi. p. 375): 5343 TELESPHORVS - ET + TRY- 
PHAENA, 5774, 6054 and other inscriptions quoted by Lft, Atten- 
tion is drawn to the contrast between the names which imply 
‘ delicate,’ ‘dainty,’ and their labours in the Lord. 

The aame Tryphaena has some interest in the early history of the Church 


as being that of the queen who plays such a prominent part in the story of 
Paul and Thecla, and who is known to have been a real character. 


MepoiSa. The name appears as that of a freedwoman, C. Z. Z. vi. 
23959 DIS: MANIB | PER: SIDI- L+ VED | VS * MITHRES | VXORI. 
It does not appear among the inscriptions of the household. 

13. ‘Poddov: one of the commonest of slave names. This Rufus 
is commonly identified with the one mentioned in Mark xv. a1, 
wnere Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus. 
St. Mark probably wrote at Rome, and he seems to speak of 
Rufus as some one well known. 

tov éxdextdv év Kupiy. ‘Elect’ is probably not here used in the 


XVI. 18-15.] PERSONAL GREETINGS 427 


technical sense ‘chosen of God,’—this would not be a feature to 
distinguish Rufus from any other Christian, —but it probably means 
‘eminent,’ ‘ distinguished for his special excellence,’ and the addition 
of €v Kupim means ‘eminent as a Christian’ (2 Jo. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 6). 
So in English phraseology the words ‘a chosen vessel’ are used 
of all Christians generally, or to distinguish some one of marked 
excellence from his fellows. 

kal Thy pytépa adtod Kat god. St. Paul means that she had 
showed him on some occasion all the care of a mother, and 
that therefore he felt for her all the affection of a son. 

14. *Aotyxpitov: the following inscription is of a freedman of 
Augustus who bore this name, C. /. Z. vi. 12565 D.M. | ASYNCRETO | 
AVG - LIB - FECIT - FL | AVIA - SVCCESSA | PATRONO BENE | ME- 
RENTI. The name Flavia suggests that it is somewhat later than 
St. Paul’s time. 

¢héyovra. The inscriptions seem to throw no light on this name. 
The most famous person bearing it was the historian of the second 
century who is referred to by Origen, and who gave some informa- 
tion concerning the Christians. 

‘Eppjv: one of the commonest of slave names, occurring con- 
stantly among members of the imperial household. 

NarpéBav. An abbreviated form of Patrobius. This name was 
borne by a well-known freedman of Nero, who was put to death by 
Galba (Tac. Zis¢.i. 49; ii. 95). Lft. quotes instances of other freed- 
men bearing it: TI- CL- AVG-L~- PATROBIVS (Grut. p. 610. 3), 
and TI - CLAVDIO « PATROBIO (Murat. p. 1329). 

“Eppas is likewise an abbreviation for various names, Hermagoras, 
Hermerus, Hermodorus, Hermogenes. It is common among 
slaves, but not so much so as Hermes, Some fathers and modern 
writers have identified this Hermas with the author of the ‘ Shepherd,’ 
an identification which is almost certainly wrong. 

kat tos adv attois dSeApous. This and the similar expression in 
the next verse seem to imply that these persons formed a small 
Christian community by themselves. 

15. @uAddoyos. A common slave name. Numerous instances 
are quoted from inscriptions of the imperial household: C. Z. Z. vi. 
4116 DAMA: LIVIAE-L:CAS...| PHOEBVS « PHILOLOGI | quoted by 
Lft. from Gorius, Jon. Liv. p. 168 ; he also quotes Murat. p. 1586. 
3, Pp. 2043. 2; Grut. p. 630. 1. He is generally supposed to be 
the brother or the husband of Julia, in the latter case Nereus, his 
sister Nerias, and Olympas may be their children. 

*louXiay. Probably the commonest of all Roman female names, 
certainly the commonest among slaves in the imperial household. 
The following inscription is interesting: C. /. Z. vi. 20416 D. M. | 
IVLIAE NEREI* F- | CLAVDIAE. The name Julia Tryphosa occurs 
20715—7 in one case apparently in a Christian inscription. 


428 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 16, 16. 


Nynpéa. This name is found in inscriptions of the imperial house. 
hold, C. Z. Z. vi. 4344 NEREVS - NAT - GERMAN | PEVCENNVS - 
GERMANICI | ANVS - NERONIS- CAESARIS. It is best known in 
the Roman Church in connexion with the Acts of Nereus and 
Achilleus, the eunuch chamberlains of Domitilla (see Ac/a Sancto- 
rum May. iii. p. 2; Texte und Untersuchungen, Band xi. Heft 2). 
These names were, however, older than that legend, as seems to 
be shown by the inscription of Damasus (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1874, 
p. 20 sq.; C. Ins. Christ. ii. p. 31) which represents them as 
soldiers. The origin of the legend was probably that in the cata- 
comb of Domitilla and near to her tomb, appeared these two 
names very prominently; this became the groundwork for the 
later romance. An inscription of Achilleus has been found in the 
cemetery of Domitilla on a stone column with a corresponding 
column which may have borne the name of Nereus: both date from 
the fourth or fifth century (Bull, Arch. Christ. 1875, p.8 sq-). These 
of course are later commemorations of earlier martyrs, and it may 
well be that the name of Nereus was in an early inscription (like 
that of Ampliatus above). In any case the name is one connected 
with the early history of the Roman Church; and the fact that 
Nereus is combined with Achilleus, a name which does not appear 
in the Romans, suggests that the origin of the legend was archaeo- 
logical, and that it was not derived from this Epistle (Lightfoot, 
Clement. i. p. 51; Lipsius Apokr. Apgesch. ii. 106 ff.). 

’Oupas: an abbreviated form like several in this list, apparently 
for ’Od\vpmiddapos. 

16. év pyjpan dyim: sor Thess. v. 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. 
xiii, 123.1 Pet. v. 14 domdcacGe addAndous ev Pirqate dydans, The 
earliest reference to the ‘kiss of peace’ as a regular part of the 
Christian service is in Just. Mart. Afol. i. 65 dddAndous Piquare 
donalcueba mravodpevon Tov evyav. It is mentioned in Tert. de Orat. 
14 (osculum pacts) ; Const. Apost. ii. 57. 12; viii. 5.5; and it became 
a regular part of the Liturgy. Cf. Origen ad loc.: Ex hoc sermone, 
altisque nonnullis similibus, mos ecclesits tracitus est, ut post orationes 
osculo se invicem suscipiant fratres. Hoc autem osculum sanctum 
appellat Apostolus. 

at éxkxAnoiat maga: tod Xptorod: this phrase is unique in the 
N.T. Phrases used by St. Paul are ai éxxAnoias trav dyiav, 9 exxAnoia 
rov Oeod, ai éxxAnotat Tov Gcov, Tais éexkAnoias THs "lovdaias Trais ev Xpist@ 
(Gal. i. 22), rév éxeAnoiav tov Oeod Tav oiady év tH “Iovdaig ev Xpiorg 
‘Incov, and in Acts xx. 28 we have the uncertain passage ryv éx- 
KAnoiav tov Kupiov or rod Ocod, where Oeds must, if the correct 
reading, be used of Xpiardés. It is a habit of St. Paul to speak on 
behalf of the churches as a whole: cf. xvi. 43 1 Cor. vii. 17; Xiv. 
33; 2 Cor. viii. 18; xi. 28; and Hort suggests that this unique 
phrase is used to express ‘the way in which the Church of Rome 


XVI. 16, 17.) WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 429 


was an object of love and respect to Jewish and Gentile Churches 
alike’ (Rom. and Eph. i. §2). 


WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS, 


KVI. 17-20. Beware of those breeders of division and 
mischief-makers who pervert the Gospel which you were 
taught. Men such as these are devoted not to Christ but to 
their own unworthy aims. By their plausible and flattering 
speech they deceive the unwary. I give you this warning, 
because your loyalty ts well known, and I would have you 
Sree from every taint of evil. God will speedily crush Satan 
_ beneath your feet. 

May the grace of Christ be with you. 


17-20. A warning against evil teachers probably of a Jewish 
character. Commentators have felt that there is something unusual 
in a vehement outburst like this, coming at the end of an Epistle 
so completely destitute of direct controversy. But after all as Hort 
points out (om. and Eph. pp. 53-55) it is not unnatural. Against 
errors such as these St. Paul has throughout been warning his 
readers indirectly, he has been building up his hearers against 
them by laying down broad principles of life and conduct, and 
now just at the end, just before he finishes, he gives one definite 
and direct warning against false teachers. It was probably not 
against teachers actually in Rome, but against such as he knew 
of as existing in other churches which he had founded, whose 
advent to Rome he dreads. 

It has been suggested again that ‘St. Paul finds it difficult to 
finish.’ There is a certain truth in that statement, but it is hardly 
one which ought to detain us long. When a writer has very much 
to say, when he is full of zeal and earnestness, there must be much 
which will break out from him, and may make his letters some- 
what formless. To a thoughtful reader the suppressed emotion 
implied and the absence of regular method will really be proofs of 
authenticity. It may be noted that we find in the Epistle to the 
Philippians just the same characteristics: there also in iii. 1, just 
apparently as he is going to finish the Epistle, the Apostle makes 
a digression against false teachers. 

17. oxomeiv, ‘to mark and avoid.’ The same word is used in 
Phil. iii, 17 cuppsynrai pov yiverbe, ddedpoi, cai cxoneite Trois ovTe 
mepimatoovras in exactly the opposite sense, ‘to mark so as to 
follow.’ 


430 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 17-18. 


Stxootaciat: cf. Gal. v. 20. Those divisions which are the 
result of the spirit of strife and rivalry (¢:s and ¢jAos) and which 
eventually if persisted in lead to aipéoets. The oxdvdada are the 
hindrances to Christian progress caused by these embittered 
relations. 

tiv 8:8ax%y, not ‘ Paulinism,’ but that common basis of Christian 
doctrine which St. Paul shared with all other teachers (1 Cor. 
xv. 1), and with which the teaching of the Judaizers was in his 
opinion inconsistent. 

éxkdivate: cf. Rom. iii. 11. The ordinary construction is with 
aré and the genitive (a) of the cause avoided dé xaxov (1 Pet. 
iii. 11), or (4) of the person. 

18. These false teachers are described as being self-interested 
in their motives, specious and deceptive in their manners. Cf. 
Phil. iii. 19 Gy 7d rédos aradea, Sv 6 Oeds H Kola, kai 9 Bdfa & TH 
aloxvvy alrav, of ra éxiyera ppovodytes. 

Th éautav kotMia. These words do not in this case appear to 
mean that their habits are lax and epicurean, but that their motives 
are interested, and their concepaions and objects are inadequate. 
So Origen: Sed et guid causae stt, qua turgia inecclestis suscitantur, 
et lites, divint Spiritus instinctu aperit. Ventris, inguit, gratia: hoc 
est, quaestus et cupiditatis. ‘The meaning is the same probably in 
the somewhat parallel passages Phil. iii. 17-21; Col. ii. 20-iii. 4. 
So Hort (Judarstic Christianity, p. 124) explains rarewogppootv to 
mean ‘a grovelling habit of mind, choosing lower things as the 
primary sphere of religion, and not ra dv, the region in which 
Christ is seated at God’s right hand.’ 

xpyjotodoyias Kai eddoylas, ‘fair and flattering speech.’ In 
illustration of the first word all commentators quote Jul. Capitolinus, 
Pertinax 13 (in Hist. August): ypyotodyov eum appellantes qui bene 
loqueretur et male faceret. The use of evdoyia which generally means 
‘praise,’ ‘laudation,’ or ‘blessing’ (cp. xv. 29), in a bad sense as 
here of ‘flattering’ or ‘specious’ language is rare. An instance is 
quoted in the dictionaries from Aesop. ad. 229, p. 150, ed. Av. 
éav o¥ evAoyias evmopys Eywyé gov ov Kydopat. 

19. 4 yap Spay Gwaxoy. ‘I exhort and warn you because your 
excellence and fidelity although they give me great cause for 
rejoicing increase my anxiety.’ These words seem definitely 
to imply that there were not as yet any dissensions or erroneous 
teaching in the Church, They are (as has been noticed) quite 
inconsistent with the supposed Ebionite character of the Church. 
When that theory was given up, all ground for holding these 
words spurious was taken away. 

Ow 8 Gpas. St. Paul wishes to give this warning without 
‘at the same time saying anything to injure their feelings. He 
gives it because he wishes them to be discreet and wary, and 


XVI. 19-23. ] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 431 


therefore blameless. In Matt. x. 16 the disciples are to be 
péviwoe and dxéparor: see also Phil. ii. 15. 

20. & Sé Ocds tis eipyyns. See on xv. 13. It is the ‘God of 
peace’ who will thus overthrow Satan, because the effect of these 
divisions is to break up the peace of the Church. 

ouvtpiver: ‘will throw him under your feet, that you may trample 
upon him.’ 

tov Satavav. In 2 Cor. xi. 14 St. Paul writes ‘for even Satan 
fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing 
therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of 
righteousness.’ The ministers of Satan are looked upon as im- 
personating Satan himself, and therefore if the Church keeps at 
peace it will trample Satan and his wiles under foot. 

4 xdpts x.t.A. St. Paul closes this warning with a salutation 
as at the end of an Epistle. 


There is very considerable divergence in different authorities as to the 
benedictions which they insert in these concluding verses. 
(1) The TR. reads in ver. 20 4 xapis Tod Kupiov jyayv "Incod [Xpiorov) 
REO tyar. 
This is supported by NA BCLP, &c., Vulg. &c., Orig.-lat. 
It is omitted by D E F G Sedul. 
(2) In ver. 24 it reads 4} xapis Tod Kuptov jyay “1. X. pera wavtow bya. 


This is a by SABC, Valg. codd. (am. fuld. harl.) Boh. Aeth. 
Orig.-lat. 

It is inserted by DEFGL, &c., Vulg. Harcl. Chrys. &c. Of these 
F GL omit vv. 25-27, and therefore make these words the end of the 
Epistle. 

(3) A third and smaller group puts these words at the end of ver. 37: 
P. 17. 80, Pesh. Arm. Ambrstr. 

Analyzing these readings we find: 

NA BC, Orig.-lat. have a benediction at ver. a1 only. 

DEF G have one at ver. 24 only. 

L, Male clem., Chrys., and the mass of later autherities have it in both 
places. 

P has it at ver. 21, and after ver. 27. 

The correct text clearly has a benediction at ver. 21 and there only; it 
was afterwards moved to a place after ver. 24, which was very probably 
in some MSS. the end of the Epistle, and in later MSS., by a natural 
conflation, appears in both. See the Introduction, § 9. 


GREETINGS OF ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS. 


XVI. 21-23. All my companions—Timothy, Lucius, Fason, 
and Sosipater—greet you. I Tertius, the amanuensts, also 
give you Christian greeting. So too do Gaius, and Erastus, 
treasurer of Corinih, and Quartus. 


21-23. These three verses form a sort o: postscript, added after 


432 EPISTLE TO-THE ROMANS [XVI. 21-27. 


the conclusion of the letter and containing the names of St. Paul’s 
companions. 

21. Tipd0eos had been with St. Paul in Macedonia (a Cor. i. 1): 
of his movements since then we have no knowledge. The pov 
with ovvepyds is omitted by B. 

Aotxtos might be the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned Acts xiii. 1. 
‘Idowv is probably the one mentioned in Acts xvii. 5-7, 9 as 
St. Paul’s host, and Seoimarpos may be the same as the Samarpos 
of Acts xx. 4, who was a native of Berea. If these identifications 
are correct, two of these three names are connected with Mace- 
donia, and this connexion is by no means improbable. They had 
attached themselves to St. Paul as his regular companions, or 
come to visit him from Thessalonica. In any case they were 
Jews (of ovyyeveis pov cf. ver. 7). It was natural that St. Paul 
should lodge with a fellow-countryman. 

22. 6 ypdias. St. Paul seems generally to have employed an 
amanuensis, see 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 17, and 
cf. Gal. vi. 11 tere myAlkors ipiv ypaupacw €ypawa ry enn xerpt. 

23. [dios who is described as the host of St. Paul and of 
the whole Church is possibly the Gaius of 1 Cor. i. 1g. In all 
probability the Christian assembly met in his house. Erastus 
(cf. 2 Tim. iv. 20) who held the important office of ofxévouos ris 
nédews, ‘the city treasurer,’ is presumably mentioned as the most 
influential member of the community. 


THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY. 


XVI. 25-27. And now let me give praise to God, who can 
make you firm believers, duly trained and established accord- 
ing to the Gospel that I proclaim, the preaching which 
announces Fesus the Messiah; that preaching in which 
God’s eternal purpose, the mystery of his working, kept 
silent since the world began, has been revealed, a purpose 
which the Prophets of old foretold, which has been preached 
now by God’s express command, which announces to all the 
Gentiles the message of obedience in faith: to God, I say, to 
Him who is alone wise, be the glory for ever through Fesus 
Messiah. Amen. 

25-27. The Epistle concludes in a manner unusual in St. Paul 


with a doxology or ascription of praise, in which incidentally all 
the great thoughts of the Epistle are summed up. Although 


XVI. 25.] THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 433 


doxologies are not uncommon in these Epistles (Gal. i 5; Rom. 
xi, 36), they are not usually so long or so heavily weighted; but 
Eph. iii. 21 ; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17 offer quite sufficient parallels; 
the two former at a not much later date. scriptions of praise at 
the conclusion of other Epp. are common, Heb. xiii. 20, 21; Jude 
24, 25; Clem. Rom. § Ixv; Mart. Polyc. 20. 

The various questions bearing on the genuineness of these 
verses and their positions in different MSS., have been sufficiently 
discussed in the Introduction, § 9. Here they are commented 
upon as a genuine and original conclusion to the Epistle exactly 
harmonizing with its contents. The commentary is mainly based 
on the paper by Hort published in Lightfoot, Bzddcal Essays, 
p- 321 ff. 

25. to Sé Suvapévw Spas ornpitar: cf. Rom. xiv. 4 orjee: h winter’ 
orabnoera dé Suvarei yap 6 Kupios otnoa aitév, A more exact 
parallel is furnished by Eph. iii. 20 ra 8€ duvapéve ... morjoa... 
ait@ 9 Sd£a. ornpifw is confined in St. Paul to the earlier Epistles 
(Rom. i, 11; and Thess.). dvvaya:, Svvatés, duvatéw of God, with 
an infinitive, are common in this group. We are at once reminded 
that ini. rz St. Paul had stated that one of the purposes of his 
contemplated visit was to confer on them some spiritual gift that 
they might be established. 

mata Td edayyédidy pou: Rom. ii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 8; cf. also 
Rom, xi. 28 xara rd evayyéAwor, One salient feature of the Epistle 
is at once alluded to, that special Gospel of St. Paul which he 
desired to explain, and which is the main motive of this Epistle. 
St. Paul did not look upon this as antagonistic to the common 
faith of the Church, but as complementary to and explanatory of 
it. To expound this would especially lead to the ‘establishment’ 
of a Christian Church, for if rightly understood, it would promote 
the harmony of Jew and Gentile within it. 

Kal To Kypuypa “Incod Xpiotod. The words xipvyua, xnptocer 
occur throughout St. Paul’s Epp., but more especially in this 
second group. (Rom. x. 8; 1 Cor. i. 21, 23; ii. 4; 2 Cori 19; 
iv. 5; xi. 4; Gal. ii. 2, &c.) The genitive is clearly objective, 
the preaching ‘about Christ’; and the thought of St. Paul is 
most clearly indicated in Rom. x. 8-12, which seems to be here 
summed up. St. Paul’s life was one of preaching. The object 
of his preaching was faith in Jesus the Messiah, and that name 
implies the two great aspects of the message, on the one hand 
salvation through faith in Him, on the other as a necessary 
consequence the universality of that salvation. The reference 
is clearly to just the thoughts which run through this Epistle, and 
which marked the period of the Judaistic controversies. 

Kata dmoxdhupuy Ait xtA. Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7, 10 codiay 
S€ AaAowper ép Trois Tedcins .. . Geov codiay ev pvotnpig, THY amoxexpup< 

ef 


434 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 26, 26. 


pérny, fv mpowpicev & Ocds mpd Trav aldvov ... piv 8€ arexdduipev 6 Ceds 
da rod Lvevparos. Eph. iii. 3, 5,6; Tit. i. 2, 3; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10, 
and for separate phrases, Rom. i. 16; iii. 21; xi. 25. This is the 
thought which underlies much of the argument of chaps. ix—xi, 
and is indirectly implied in the first eight chapters. It represents 
in fact, the conclusion which the Apostle has arrived at in musing 
over the difficulties which the problems of human history as he 
knew them had suggested. God who rules over all the aeons or 
periods in time, which have passed and which are to come, is 
working out an eternal purpose in the world. For ages it was 
a mystery, now in these last days it has been revealed: and this 
revelation explains the meaning of God’s working in the past. 
The thought then forms a transition from the point of view of 
the Romans to that of the Ephesians. It is not unknown in the 
Epp. of the second group, as the quotation from Corinthians shows; 
but there it represents rather the conclusion which is being arrived 
at by the Apostle, while in the Epp. of the Captivity it is assumed 
as already proved, and as the basis on which the idea of the Church 
is developed. The end of the Epistle to the Romans is the first 
place where we should expect this thought in a doxology, and 
coming there, it exactly brings out the force and purpose of the 
previous discussion. 

The passage xara dmoxdhuyw down to ywpicbevros goes not with 
ornpigfa but with xypvyya, The preaching of Christ was the 
revelation of the ‘mystery which had been hidden,’ and explained 
God’s purpose in the world. 

26. In this verse we should certainly read &a re ypapay mpo- 
gntixav. The only Greek MSS. that omit re are DE, and the 
authority of versions can hardly be quoted against it. Moreover, 
the sentence is much simpler if it be inserted. It couples together 
gavepwbevros and yrapicbevros, and all the words from d&a re ypapav 
to the latter word should be taken together. cis mavra ra €6vn 
probably goes with eis imaxoyy miorews and not with yropicbérros, 

Sud TE ypadhGv mpopytikay ... yvwptabevtos. All the ideas in 
this sentence are exactly in accordance with the thoughts which 
run through this Epistle. The unity of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, the fact that Christ had come in accordance with the 
Scriptures (Rom, i. 1, 2), that the new method of salvation although 
apart from law, was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets 
(uaprupoupérn tnd rod vépov Kat tav mpopnrav Rom. iii. 21), the 
constant allusion esp. in chaps. ix-xi to the Old Testament 
Scriptures; all these are summed up in the phrase da ypadap 
Spopntixav. 

The same is true of the idea expressed by xar’ émrayjy row 
aiwviov Gcov, The mission given to the preachers of the Gospel 
is brought out generally in Rom. x. 15 ff., the special command 


XVI. 26, 27.] THE CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY 435 


to the Apostle is dwelt on in the opening vv. 1-5, and the sense 
of commission is a constant thought of this period. With regard 
to the words, aiwviov is of course suggested by xpdvas aiwvios: 
cp. Baruch iv. 8, Susanna (Theod.) 42 (LXX) 35. The formula 
kar’ émttayjy occurs I Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8, but with quite 
a different meaning ; in the sense of this passage it comes again in 
Lin isp 5: Tit & 3. 

We find the phrase eis traxojy rictrews in Rom. i. 5. As Hort 
points out, the enlarged sense of émaxon and traxovw is confined to 
the earlier Epistles. 

The last phrase es mavra ra 26vn yooptobérvtos hardly requires 
illustrating ; it is a commonplace of the Epistle. In this passage 
still carrying on the explanation of xypvyya, four main ideas of 
the Apostolic preaching are touched upon—the continuity of the 
Gospel, the Apostolic commission, salvation through faith, the 
preaching to the Gentiles. 

péva cop@ GeO: a somewhat similar expression may be found 
in 1 Tim. i. 17, which at a later date was assimilated to this, cop@ 
being inserted. But the idea again sums up another line of 
thought in the Epistlk—God is one, therefore He is God of both 
Jews and Greeks ; the Gospel is one (iii. 29, 30). God is infinitely 
wise (& Baéos mAotrou cai codias xai yyooews Ccod Xi. 33); even 
when we cannot follow His tracks, He is leading and guiding 
us, and the end will prove the depths of His wisdom. 

27. @ 4 86g «.r.h. The reading here is very difficult. 

1. It would be easy and simple if following the authority of 
B. 33. 72, Pesh., Orig.-lat. we could omit #, or if we could read 
ait@ with P. 31. 54 (Boh. cannot be quoted in favour of this 
reading; Wilkins’ translation which Tisch. follows is wrong). 
But both these look very much like corrections, and it is difficult 
to see how @ came to be inserted if it was not part of the original 
text. Nor is it inexplicable. The Apostle’s mind is so full of the 
thoughts of the Epistle that they come crowding out, and have 
produced the heavily loaded phrases of the doxology; the struc- 
ture of the sentence is thus lost, and he concludes with a well- 
known formula of praise ¢ 9 d0éa x.r.A. (Gal. i. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 18; 
Heb. xiii. 21). 

2. If the involved construction were the only difficulty caused 
by reading 6, it would probably be right to retain it. But there 
are others more serious. How are the words &a lL. X. to be taken? 
and what does ¢ refer to? 

(1) Grammatically the simplest solution is to suppose, with 
Lid., that 6 refers to Christ, and that St. Paul has changed the 
construction owing to the words da 1.X. He had intended to 
finish ‘to the only wise God through Christ Jesus be Glory,’ 
as in Jude 25 udvp Ged cwrgp: qpav, dia I. X. rod Kupiox Gpar, ddga, 


436 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [XVI. 27. 


peyakwooty, «7... but the words "Ijvod Xpicrod remind him that 
it is through the work of Christ that all this scheme has been 
developed; he therefore ascribes to Him the glory. This is the 
only possible construction if ¢ be read, but it can hardly be 
correct; and that not because we can assert that on @ priord 
grounds a doxology cannot be addressed to the Son, but because 
such a doxology would not be in place here. The whole purpose 
of these concluding verses is an ascription of praise to Him who 
is the only wise God. 

(2) For this reason most commentators attempt to refer the 
@ to Geo. This in itself is not difficult: it resembles what is 
the probable construction in 1 Pet. iv. 1, and perhaps in Heb. 
xiii. 21. But then &a& "I. X. becomes very difficult. To take it 
with co¢@ would be impossible, and to transfer it into the 
relative clause would be insutferably harsh. 

There is no doubt therefore that it is by far the easiest course 
to omit ¢ We have however the alternative of supposing that 
it is a blunder made by St. Paul's secretary in the original letter. 
We have seen that some such hypothesis may explain the im- 
possible reading in iv. 12. 


els rods alévas should be read with BCL, Harcl., Chrys. Cyr. Theodrt. 
Tav aidvay was added in NADEP, Vulg. Pesh. Boh. Orig.-lat. &c., 
owing to the influence of 1 Tim. i. 17. 


The doxology sums up all the great ideas of the Epistle. 
The power of the Gospel which St. Paul was commissioned to 
preach; the revelation in it of the eternal purpose of God; its 
contents, faith; its sphere, all the nations of the earth; its author, 
the one wise God, whose wisdom is thus vindicated—all these 
thoughts had been continually dwelt on. And so at the end 
feeling how unfit a conclusion would be the jarring note of 
vv. 17-20, and wishing to ‘restore the Epistle at its close to its 
tone of serene loftiness,’ the Apostle adds these verses, writing 
them perhaps with his own hand in those large bold letters which 
seem to have formed a sort of authentication of his Epistles 
(Gal. vi. 11), and thus gives an eloquent conclusion to his great 
argument. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


eee 


I. SUBJECTS. 


Abbot, Dr. Ezra, p. 233. 

Abbott, Dr. T. K., pp. 128; 185, &c. 

Abelard, pp. cii; 272. 

Abraham, Descent from, p. 55. 

Faith of, p. 97 ff. 

History of, in St. Paul and St. 
James, p. 102 ff. 

Promise to, pp. 109 ff.; 248. 

Righteousness of, p. 100 ff. 

Accusative case, vi. 10 ; viii. 3. 

Acilius Glabrio, p. 420. 

Acte, p. xvii. 

Adam, pp. 130 ff.; 343 ff. 

Fall of, p. 136 ff. 

Adrian, p. 45. 

Agrippesii, pp. XX; xxiii. 

Alexandrian text, p. lxxi. 

Alexandrinus, Codex, p. \xiii. 

Alford, Dean, p. cviii. 

Aliturus, p. xxii, 

Amanuensis, xvi. 22; pp. lx; 127. 

Ambrosiaster, pp. xxv; ci. 

Amiatinus, Codex, pp. xvi; xc. 

Ampliatus, xvi. 8; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 

Andronicus, xvi. 7; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 

Angelicus, Codex, p. \xv. 

Angels, pp. 146; 222 f. 

Aorist tense, il. 13; iii. 27. 

Apelles, xvi. 18; p. xxxiv. 

Apollonius, p. lii. 

Apostle, pp. 4 f.; 423. 

Aquila and Priscilla (Prisca), pp. 
xviii; xxvii; xxxiv; xl; 370; 411; 
414 ff. 

titulus of, p. 419. 
the church in their house, p. xxxv. 
Aquilia Prisca, p. 420. 


Aquinas, Thomas, pp. cil; 1g§0 f.; 
272 f.; 3493 394. 

Aristides, p. lxxxii. 

Aristobulus, xvi. 10; pp. xxiii; xxvii; 
XXXIV; XXXV. 

Armenian Version, pp. Ixvii; Lxviii f. 

Arminius, pp. civ; 274. 

Arnold, Matthew, pp. xliv; 163 f. 

Article, Use of, ii. 12, 13; iii, 113 iv. 
12, 243 Vili. 26; ix. 4. 

Asia, Province of, xvi. 5. 

Astarte, p. xviii. 

Asyncritus, xvi. 145; p. XXXv. 

Athanasius, St., p. 305. 

Atonement, pp. 88; 91 ff.; 117; 129; 
149. 

Day of, pp. 85; 92; 122 ff. 

Attraction, Grammatical, iv. 17; vib 
17; ix. 24; x. 14. 

Augiensis, Codex, pp. \xiv; Ixix. 

Augustesit, pp. xx; xxiii. 

Augustine, St., pp. 149 f.; 185; 217; 
271 f.; 3793 394, &c. 


Babylon, as a name of Rome, p. xxix. 

Balfour, Mr. A. J., p. 224. 

Baptism, pp. 107; 153 ff. 

Barmby, Dr. J., p. cix. 

Baruch, Apocalypse of, pp. 333; 1373 
207, &c. 

Basileides, p. Ixxxii. 

Batiffol, The Abbé P., p. Ixv. 

Baumlein, W., pp. 20, &c. 

Baur, F. C., pp. xxxii; xxxix; xcij; 
400. 

Beet, Dr. J. Agar, p. cvii. 

Benediction, The concluding, p. xei. 


438 


Bengel, J. A., p. ev. 

Berliner, p. xviii. 

Beyschlag, Dr. Willibald, p. 275. 

Beza, Theodore, p. civ. 

Blood-shedding, Sacrificial, pp. 89; 
gi f.; 119. 

Boernerianus, Codex, pp. \xiv; \xix. 

Bohairic Version, viii. 28; p. lxvii. 

Bousset, W., p. xviii f. 

Browning, Robert, p. 263. 

Burton, Prof. E. De Witt, p. 20 and 
passim. 


Caius, p. xxix. 

Caligula, p. xx. 

Call, Conception of, pp. 4; 317. 

Callistus, the Roman Bishop, p. xxiii. 

Calvin, pp. ciii; 151 f.; 273. 

Capito, p. xv. 

Caspari, Dr. C. P., p. lii. 

Catacumbas, ad, p. Xxx. 

Cenchreae, xvi. 1; p. xxxvii. 

Ceriani, Dr., p. lxvii. 

Charles, R. H., pp. 145; 326, &c. 

Chrestus, p. Xx. 

Chrysostom, St., pp. xcix; 148; 270; 
295, &c. 

Churches, the earliest (buildings for 
worship), xvi. 5. 

Cicero, p. xx. 

Circumcision, p. 106 ff. 

Civil Power, pp. 365 ff.; 369 ff. 

Claromontanus, Codex, pp. xiv; \xix. 

Clemen, Dr. A., pp. xxxvii; xxxviii ; 
307. 

Clemen, Dr. C., pp. xxxvii f.; Ixxxix. 

Clemens Romanus, pp. xxix ; xxix; 
147; 371. 

Clemens, Flavius, p. xxxv. 

Coislinianus, Codex, pp. lxiv ; Ixviii; 
lxxii. 

Colet, John, p. cii. 

Collection for the saints in Jerusalem, 
Pp. xxxvi; xcii. 

Columbaria, p. xvii. 

Commandments, The Ten, p. 373 f. 

Communication in Roman Empire, 
p. xxvi f. 

Conflict, The Inward, p. 184 f. 

Conversion, p. 186. 

Conybeare, F. C., p. lxix. 

Cook, Canon, p. Ixvii. 

Corbulo, p. xv. 

Corinth, p. xxxvi. 

Corinthians, First Epistle to, pp. xxxvii ; 
418, 

Corssen, Dr. P., pp. lxviii ; lxix ; xcviii. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Covenant, pp. 230; 24% 
Critici Sacri, p. civ. 
Cyprian, p. lii. 

Cyrene, p. xvi. 

Cyril of Alexandria, p. 216 £ 


Damascenus, Johannes, p. c. 

Damasus, the Roman Bishop, p. xxx. 

Date of the Epistle, pp. xxxvi ff.; 2. 

Dative casey iv. 20; vi. 5; Vii. 4, 54 
viii. 24. 

David, Descent of Messiah from, i. 3; 
as author of Psalms, iv. 6; xi. 9. 

Days, Observance of, p. 386 f. 

Death, Idea of (see ‘Jesus Christ, 
Death of’; @avaros), vi. 8, 

pee Herr G. A,, pp. 160 f.; 


444 ff. 

Delitzsch, Dr. F., p. 45 and passim. 

Depositio Martyrum, p. xxx. 

De Rossi, Cav. G. B., p. 418 f& 

De Wette, p. cvi. 

Dickson, Dr. W. P., p. cvi. 

Dionysius of Corinth, p. xxix, 

Domitilla, p. xxxv. 

Doxologies, pp. 46; 237 f. 

Doxology, The (Rom. xvi. 25-27), 
pp. lxxix; Ixxxix ; xcv; 432 ff. 

Dwight, Dr. T., p. 233. 


Ebionite, p. 400. 

Edersheim, Dr. A., pp. xxiii; 136 ££ 

Egyptian Versions, p. lxvii 

Election, pp. 244 f.; 248 ff.; 344. 

Epaenetus, xvi. 5; p. xxvii. 

Ephesians, Epistle to the, p. lv. 

Ephesus, pp. xvi; xciii. 

Ephraemi, Codex, p. \xiii. 

Epistles of St. Paul, Addresses ef, 

mers 

Erasmus, p. cii. 

Erastus, p. xxxvii, 

Esau, ix. 13. 

Essenes, p. 400 £ 

Estius, p. civ. 

Ethiopic Version, p. Lxvil. 

Euthalius, p. xix. 

Euthymius Zigabenus, p. c 

Evans, Dr. T. S., pp. 99; 1265 331; 
322. 

Evanson, E., p. Ixxxvi. 

Everling, Dr, O., p. 223. 

Evil, Power of, p. 145 £ 

Ewald, Dr. P., p. 61. 

Ezra, Fourth Book of, p. 33 and 


passim, 


I. SUBJECTS 


Fairbaim, Dr. A. M., p. ciii. 
Batty Pe 19; 31 ff.; 83f.; 94 ff.; 


7 

z and Works, pp. 57; 105. 
Fall, The, pp. 85; 130 ff.; 136 ff; 

143 ff.; 205. 
Felix, p. xv 
Forensic terms, pp. 30 f.; ain 220. 
Free-Will, pp. 216; 347 f 
Fricke, Dr. G. A., p. 131. 
Friedlander, Dr. L., p. 51. 
Fritzsche, C. F. A. pp. cvi; 275, &c 
Fuldensis, Codex, pp. \xvi; xc. 


Gaius, xvi. 23; p. xxxvii. 

Galatia, Churches of, p. xxxviii. 

Galatians, Epistle to the, p. XXXVil. 

Genitive case, iii, 22; iv. 11; v. 53 
vii. 5; viii. 36; xv. 5, 13, 333 Xvi. 


20, 25. 

Gentiles ace €6vn), i. 5y 1a 18-32 5 
ii. 14f., 26; iii. 9, 23, 29 f.; ix. 30; 
x. 12; xv. 9 ff., 16 f.; xvi. 2 

Call of the, ix. 24 ff. 

Gentile-Christians, i. 6; iv. 17; xi. 

13 ff.; xv. 9 ff., 27. 


in Church of Rome, pp-xxxii; lif . 


Gifford, Dr. E. H., p. cviti. 
Gnostics, Ppp: 269 ; ” 368. 
Gop, as Creator, pp. 259; A 266 f. 

as meaner pp- 16 f.; aor ff.; 


396 
oe of pp. 118 f.; 1253 219 ff.; 


224. 
Mercy of, p. 332 ff. 
Sovereignty of, pp. 216; 250 ff. ; 


257 f. 
Godet, Dr. F., p. cviii, &c. 
Gore, Canon, pp. 200; 267, &c. 
Gospel, The, pp. xiii; 1. 
Universality of the (see ‘Gen- 
tiles’), p. 298 £. 
Gospels, The, Pp, 83.17; 303 325 
30 f.; of; 381 f.; 431. 
Gothic Version, The, pp. lxvii; Ixix. 
Grace (see xépis), The state of, p. 218 ff. 
Grafe, Dr. E., p. 52. 
Greek Commentators, pp. xcix; 207; 
216. 
Greeks in Rome, p. xvii. 
Green, T. H., pp. 42; 164 f. 
Grimm, Dr. Willibald, p. 233. 
Grotius, Hugo, p. civ. 
Grouping of MSS., p. Ixvii. 


Hammond, Henry, p. cv 
Heathen (see ‘Gentiles,’ 26vn), p. 4gf. 


439 


Hebrews, Epistle to the, pp. Ixxvi; 
323 92; II5. 

Heirship, p. 201 ff. 

Hermas, xvi. 14. 

Hermes, xvi. 14. 

Herodion, xvi. 11; Ppp. XXvil; XXxiv. 

Herods, The, p. xxi f. 

Hesychius, p. Ixviil. 

Hilary, p. ci. 

Hispalus, p. xix. 

History, St. Paul’s Philosophy of, 
Pp. 342 ff. 

Hodge, Dr. C., p. cvi. 

Hort, Dr. F. J. A., pp. xvi; lxix; 
Ixxxix; xcv; 165; 401; 414 f.; 
4205 429; 433 

Hugh of St. Viton p. cii. 


Ignatius, pp. xxix; Ixxix; 161; 200. 

Illyria, Illyricum, p. 407 ff. 

Immanence, The Divine, p. 197. 

Imperfect tense, ix. 3. 

Infinitive (cf. els 16), i. 10; ii. a1; 
RIES. 

Integrity of the Epistle, pp. Ixxxi; 


399- 
Interpolations in ancient writers, p. 
lxxvi f. 
Interpretation, History of, pp. 147 ff. ; 
269 ff. 
Irenaeus, p. xxix. 
Isaac, pp. 112 ff.; 238 ff. 
Isis, Worship of, pp. xviii; xx. 
Israel (see Jews, &c.), Privileges of, 
Pp. 24; 53 ff.; 68 ff.; 232; 398. 
Rejection of, pp. 238 ff. ; 307 ff. ; 
318 ff.; 341 f. 
Restoration of, p. 318 ff. 
Unbelief of, p. 225 ff. 


Jacob, ix. 13. 
James, St., pp. 32; 102 ff.; 145. 
Epistle of, p. lxxvii. 
Jason, p. xxxvii. , 
Jeo Fall of, pp. 227; 346; 
O. 
Collection for poor saints in, 
Pp. Xxxvi; xcii. 
St. Paul’s visit to, p. 414 re 
Jesus CHRIST (see ‘Incots Xpiorés, 
Xpio7ds "Inoois, év Xpiorg), 
Death of, pp. 91 ff. ; 160. 
Descent of, p- 6f. 
ee of (see Gospels), p. 37, 


Jewish ietehine (see ‘Messianic In- 
terpretation’). 


440 


Jewish gps on Adam’s Fall, 
P. 13 
on Atonement, p. 88. 
on Circumcision, p. 108 f, 
on Election, p. 248 f. 
on Relation to Civil Power, p. 369. 
en Renovation of Nature, p- 
aro ff. 

on Restoration of Israel, p. 336 £ 

Jews (see ‘ Israel’). 
as critics, p. 53 ff. 
Failure of the, p, 63 ff 
in Rome, p. xviii f. 
banished from Rome, p. xx. 
their organization, p. xxii f. 
their social status, p. xxv. 
influence onRoman Society,p.xxv. 
their migratory character, p. xxvi. 
their turbulence, p. xxxiii. 

a St., pp. 91 f.; 163. 

owett, Dr. B., p. cvii. 

Judaistic Controversy, p. lvii. 

Judaizers, p. 400. 

Jude, St., p. 32. 

Epistle of, p. Ixxix. 

Judgement, The Final, p. 53 ff. 

Julia, xvi. 15; p. xxxiv. 

Jiilicher, on Ephesians, p. lv. 

Julius Caesar, relation to the Jews, 
p. xix. 

Junia (or Junias), xvi. 17; pp. xxvii; 
xxxiv. 

Justification (see Bixaioavyn @cod, d- 
Ka.ovv, dikaimors, dicaieza), pp. 30f.; 
36ff. ; 575118 ff. ;122;128 5152; 190. 

and Sanctification, p- 38. 
ustin Martyr, p. lxxxiii. 
uvenal, p. lii. 


Kautzsch, Dr. E., pp. 72; 307. 
Kelly, W., p. evii. 

Kennedy, Dr. B. H., p. 233 
Kenyon, Dr. F. G., p. 234. 
Klopper, Dr. A., p. 62. 
Knowling, R. J., p. lxxxix. 


Laodicea, p. xvi. 

Lapide, Cornelius a, pp. civ; 152. 

Latin Version, The Old (Lat. Vet), 
i. 30; iii. 255 v. 3-5, 14; viii. 3 
ix. 17; pp. lxvi; 273. 

Law, Conception of, Pp. 58; 109 ff. ; 
161; 343 f. 

and crete pp. 166 ff.; 176 ff.; 


187 
Libertini, PP xix; xxviii. 
Liddon, Dr. H. PE p- cviii and gassine. 


BNDEX TO THE NOTES 


us. Idea of, vi. 8; vil. 95 mill. 63 
=<. 5s) Xi.ik- 
Lightfoot, Bp., pp. lxxxix; xcv and 


passim 

Lipsius, Dr. R. A,, p. cix and 

Literary History of Epistle to the 
Romans, p. lxxiv. 

Locke, John, B cv. 


lxxxvi, 
Love, pp. 373 | 3 376 f. 

Lucius, xvi. 31. 

Luther, Martin, pp. ciii; 425 1g%. 
Lyons, p. xvi. 


Maccabees, The, p. xix. 

Mangold, Dr. W., pp. xxxil; xcifi; 
3993 417. 

Manuscripts, p. lxiii f. 

Marcion, pp. Ixxxili; xe; xevi; 28; 
55; 83; 1793 180; 1905 "226; 
339 5 366; 384. 

Mark, St, p- xxix. 

Marriage, Law of, p. 170 ff 

Martial, p. lii. 

Martyrolagium Hieronymianum, p. 


Mace (Miriam), pp. xxxiv; xxxv. 

Mayor, Dr. J. B., p. xxvii. 

Melanchthon, Philip, p. ciii, 

Merit, pp. 81; 86; 94 ff.; 97 ff. 5 2455 
330 ff. 

Messiah, Coming of the, Pee 62; 188; 
207; 287 f.; 296; 33 379 f. 
Messianic Interpretation of Of... 
pp. 281 f.; 287 f.; 296; 306; 336. 
Meyer, 4 Dr. H. A. W., p. cvi and 


passi 
Michelaen: J. H. A., p. lxxxviii, 
Minucius Felix, p. liv. 

Mithras, p. xviii. 

Mosquensis, Codex, p. \xv. 
Moule, H. C. G., p. cviii. 


Naasseni, p. lxxxii. 

Naber, S. A., p. lxxxvi. 

Narcissus, xvi. 11; p. xxxivf£ 

Natural Religion, pp. 39 ff; 54 

Nereus, xvi. 5. 

Nero, The Osing eee of, p. xiv. 
Character of his reign, p. xv. 
Law and Police under him, p. xvi, 

Neutral Text, p. lxxi. 

Novatian, p. lit, 


Objections, Treatment of, pp. 69; 


743 985 253% 2935 295- 
enius, p. c 


I. SUBJECTS 


Oehler, Dr. G. F., p. 318. 
Old Testament, Use of on PP. 77; 
264; 288 f.; "302 ff. ; 396. 
Collections” of extracts from, 
pp. 264; 282. 
Oltramare, Hugues, p. cviii. 
Olympas, xvi. 15. 
Ongen, p. xcix and passim. 
Original Sin, p. 137. 
Ostian way, The, p. xxix. 


Eagsnian, p. 49 ff 
Paley, W., p. 413. 
Parousia, The, p. 377 ff. 
Participle, Bot of, iv. 18; v. 13 
ix, 22. 
Passive Obedience, p. 372. 
Patiriensis, C. » p- Ixy. 
Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve, 
p- Lxxxii. 
Patrobas, xvi. 14. 
Patron, p. 417 f. 
Pattison, Mark, p 
Paul, St. (see oe alee *St. John,’ 
‘St. Jude,’ ‘St. Peter’). 
Collection of his Epistles, p. lxxix. 
Conversion of, p. 186. 
Courtesy of, PP. 213 403. 


Death of, p. xxxi 
Grief of, over Israel, Pp. 225; 
227. 
erusalem visits, p. xlii. 
ourneys of, pp. xxxvi ff. ; 407 ff. ; 
413 ff. 
Penetrating insight of, pp. 26£; 
103; 186, 
Philosophy of History of, p. 
342 ff. 
Plans of, pp. xxxvi ff.; 109 ff.; 
410 ff. 


Roman citizenship, p. xiv. 
seer and its influence on, pp. xili; 


Style c of, p. liv. 

Temperament and character,p.lix. 
Paulus Episcopus, p. viii. 
Pedanius Secundus, p. xvii. 

Pelagius, p. ci. 
Perfect tense, v. 2; ix. 19; xvi. 7. 
Persis, xvi. 12; p. Xxxv. 
Peshitto Version, The, p. lxvii. 
Peter, St. 
Death of, p. xxxii. 
Roman Church and, pp. xxviii ff. ; 
Ixxvi. 
His twenty-five years’ episcopate, 
p- Xxx. 


441 


Peter, First Epistle of, p. lxxiv ff. 

Pharaoh, ix. 17. 

Philo, Embassy to Rome, p. xx. 

Philologus, xvi. 15; p. xxxiv £ 

Phlegon, xvi. 14. 

Phoebe, xvi. 1; p. xxxvi. 

Pierson, A,, p. ixxxvi. 

Plumptre, Dean, Pp- 420; 426. 

Polycarp, Epistle of, pp. lxxix; 371. 

Pompeius Magnus, p. xix. 

Pomponia Graecina, pp. xviii; xxii; 
XXxv. 

Poor, Contributions for the, pp. xxxvi ; 
xcii; 412 f. 

Poppaea Sabina, p. xviii. 

Porphyrianus, Codex, p. \xv. 

Porta Portuensis, Jewish cemetery at, 
p. Xx. 

Portus, Jewish cemetery at, p. xx. 

Predestination (see ‘ Election,’ ‘ Re- 
sponsibility’), p. 347 ff. 

Prisca (Priscilla : see ‘ Aquila’), xvi. 3. 

Priscillae coemeterium, p. 419. 

Promise, Conception lg pp. 6; 18; 
109 ff. 

Propitiation, pp. 92; 94; 129f 

Proselytes, p. xxv. 

Provinces under Nero, p. xv. 


Pythagoreans, p. 400. 
Quinguennium of Nero, p. xiv. 
eerie W. M., pp. xiv; xxviii; 


Rescpiciliation, Idea of, p. 129 f. 
Reformation Theology, The, pp. cii; 
152; 273f. 
Regeneration, p. 185 £ 
Reiche, p. xev. 
Seer Doctrine of the, pp. 308; 
316 
Renan, E., pp. xcii; 421. 
Rendall, F. -) P- XXxviii. 
Resch, Dr, A., p. 382. 
Resurrection, p- 335 f. 
of Christ, pp. 112 ff. ; 116 f.; 159. 
pay (cf. awoxaAuyis), pp. 39 ff.; 


Riddell, Mr. James, p. IgI. 
Righteousness, p. 28 ff. 

of God, pp. 24 ff.; 134 ff 
Roman Church, pp- xxv; 18 ff. ; 3703 

401 f.; 404. 

Composition of, p. xxxi. 

Creed of, p. liii. 

Government, pp. XXXV 5 a hte 

Greek character of, p. lii 


442 


Roman Church (continued)— 

Mixed character of, p. xxxiv. 

Origin of, pp. xxv; Lxxvi. 

Status and condition of, p. xxxiv. 
Roman citizenship, St. Paul’ as p. xiv. 
Roman Empire, p. xiv. 

Romans, Epistle to the. 

Analysis of, p. xlvii. 

Argument of, p. xliv. 

Ephesians compared with, p, lv. 

Integrity of, p. Ixxxv. 

Language and Style of, lii. 

Literary History of, ee Ixxiv. 

Occasion of, p- xxxvi 

Place of, in Pauline Epistles, 

p- lxxxiv. 

Purpose of, p. xxxix. 

Text of, p. lxii. 

Time and place of, p. xxxvi. 
Rome in A.D. 58, p. xiii ff. 

Influence of, on St. Paul, pp. xiii; 


xxvi. 
Rofus, xvi. 13; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 
Ruskin, Mr., p. 93. 


Sacrifice of Christ, pp. 91 ff.; 119; 
122. 

Sacrifices, the Levitical, pp. 92; 122. 

Sahidic Version, p. xvii. 

Salvation, pp. 23 f.; 152 f. 

Sanctification, pp. 38; 152. 

Sangermanensts, Codex, p. \xix. 

Satan, p. 145. 

Schader, Dr. E., p, 117. 

Schaefer, Dr. A., p. cix. 

Scholasticism, PP. 37; 118; 123. 

Schultz, Dr. H. , P- 14. 

Schiirer, Dr. E., p. xviii and passim. 

Scrivener, Dr. F, H. A,, p. lxvii. 

Sedulius Scotus, p. lxiv. 

Seneca, p. xvii. 

Septuagint, passim. 

Silvanus, p. xxix. 

Sin, pp. 130 ff ; 136 ff; 143 ff.; 176 ff. 

Sinaiticus, Codex, pp. Ixii; lxvii. 

Slavery in Rome, p- xviii. 

Smeud, Dr. R., p. 29. 

Smith, Dr. W. Robertson, PP: 14; 
3171. 

Society, the Christian, pp. 122 f.; 355. 

Sohm, Dr. R., p. 15. 

Sonship, p- 201 ff. 

Sosipater, p. xxxvii. 

Spain, xv. 24, 28. 

Speculum, The, p. 124. 

Spirit, The Holy, pp. 189 ff.; 196 £.; 
199 ff. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Spiritual gifts, pp. a1; 358 
Stachys, xvi. 9; p. xxvii. 

Steck, Rudolph, p. lxxxvi. 
Stichi (arixot), p. lvif. 

Stoicism, p. xvi. 

Stuart, Moses, p. evi 

Suetonius, p. xxi. 

Suillius, p. xvi. 

Swete, Dr. H. B., p. 73 a 231. 
Syriac Versions, p. Lxxi ff. 


Terminology, Theological, p. 17. 

Tertius, xvi. 23. 

Tertullian, p. xxix. 

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
p- lxxxii and passim. 

Text of the Epistle, p. Lxdii. 

‘ New nomenclature suggested, 

p- lxxi. 

Theodoret, pp. c; 149 and passim. 

Theophanes, p. cix. 

Theophylact, p. c. 

Thessalonians, Epp. to, p. bri. 

Tholuck, F. A. G., p. cv. 

Timotheus, xvi. 213 p. xxxvii. 

Toy, Prof. C. H., p. 306 £. 

Trent, Council of, p- 152. 

Trinity, Doctrine of the, pp. 16, 
200; 340. 

Tryphaena, xvi. 12; p. Xxxv. 

Tryphosa, xvi. 12; p. Xxxv. 

Turpie, Mr. D M°Calman, p. 307. 

Tyndale, pp. 65; 1755 1943 393- 


Union with Christ, pp. 117; 153 ff.; 
162 ff. 
Urbahus, xvi. 9; pp. xxvii; xxxiv. 


Valentinians, p. Ixxxii. 

Van Manen, W.C., p. lxxxvii, 

Vatican Hill, The, p. xxix. 

Vaticanus, Codex, pp. lxiii; Ixviii; 
lxxiii. 

Vaughan, Dr. C. J., p. evii. 

Vegetarians, pp.-385 ; 401 £ 

Versions, p. lxvi. 

Vicarious suffering, P- 93- 

Victor, Bishop, p. lil. 

Vipsanius Terenas, p. xv. 

Voelter, Dr. D., p. 


Weak, The, pp. 383 ff.; 399 ff 
Weber, Dr. F., p. 7 and 

Weber, Dr. V., p. 275. 

Weiss, Dr. Bernhard, pp- xl; cvi. 
Weisse, C. H., p. lxxxvi. 
Westcott, Bishop, PP- 93; 129. 


II. LATIN WORDS 


Western Text, The, p. lxxi ff. 
Wetstein, J. J., p. cv. 

Weymonth, Dr. R. F., p. 424. 
Wiclif, pp. 9; 1755 194- 
Wordsworth, Dr. Christopher, p. cvii. 


443 


Works, pp. 57; 103; 275 ff. 
Wrath of God, pp. 47; 117. 


Zahn, Dr. Theodor, p, lxxxv. 
Ziegler, L., p. lxvi, 





II. LATIN WorRDs. 


tugulatio, p. 222. 
mortificart, p. 232. 
perficio, pp. 58; 124. 
perpetro, p. 58. 
pressura, pp. 573 124 
victima, p. 222. 


angustia, p. 57. 
¢aritas, pp. 1243 375- 
definitus, p. 8. 
deputatus, p. 222. 
destinatus, p. 8. 
délectio, pp. 1243 375» 





III. GREEK WoRDS. 


[This is an Index to the Notes and not a Concordance; sometimes however, 
where it is desirable to illustrate a particular usage, references are given to 
passages which are not directly annotated in the Commentary. The oppor- 
tunity is also taken to introduce occasional references to two works which 
appeared too late for use in the Commentary, /Votes on Epistles of St. Paul 
Jrom unpublished Commentaries (including the first seven chapters of the 
Romans) by Bp. Lightfoot, and Bzdelstudien by G. Adolf Deissmann (Mar- 
burg, 1895). Some especially of the notes on words in the former work 
attain to classical value (dya@dés and Sixaos, avaxepadaovaba, d¥eviov), and 
the latter brings to bear much new illustrative matter from the Flinders Petrie 
and other papyri and from inscriptions. In some instances the new material 
adduced has led to a confirmation, while in others it might have led to a 
modification of the views expressed in the Commentary. We cannot however 
include under this latter head the somewhat important differences in regard to 
dixatodby and karadAaooev. Bp. Lightfoot’s view of diaody in particular 
seems to us less fully worked out than was usual with him.] 


"ABBG, viii. 15. 

GBuooos, x. 7. 

dya0és, v. 7 (=Lft.); 7d dyaddy, xiii. 
4; xiv. 16; xv. 2. 

ayabwotvn, xv. 14. 

dyanGy, xiii. 8, 9. 

ayam, v. 5, 8; xii. 93 xiii. 10; 
xv. 30; pp. 374 ff.: cf. Deissmann, 
p- 80 f. 

ayy6Aos, viii. 38. 

ayiacpes, vi. 19. dxa@apoia, vi. 19. 

Gy.os, i. 7; xi. 16; xii. 1, 13; xvi. 2, | dso7, x. 16. 
14. axpoarns, ii, 13. 


ay.wotvn, i. 4. 

dyvoeiv, x. 3; xi. 25. 

GypiéAatos, xi. 17. 

ddedpos, x. 1: cf. Deissmann, p. 82 f. 
ddixia, i. 18, 29; iii. 5. 

Gddxipos, i. 28. 

advvaros, Vili. 3. 

aidios, i. 20. 

aixa, iii. 25; pp. 91 f., 1g. 


aidy, xii. 2. 


444 


dxpoBvoria, ii. 27. 
dAnGea, i, 25; iii. 6. 
dAnOns, iii. 4. 
GAAG Ady, x. 18, 19. 
ddAdooey éy, i, 23. 
GAAST pos, xv. 20. 
Gua, iii. 12. 
Guapravew, v. 12, 13; vi. 153 p. 144. 
dydprnya, iii. 25. 
Gpapria, iii. 25; v.13; p. 143 f. 
}, V. 12; vi. 6, 7, 10; vii. 8. 
dpuerapéAnros, xi. 29. 
dvaBaivew, x. 6, 
avayeuw, x. 6, 
ava(jy, vii. 9. 
dvdGepa, ix. 3. 
dvakaivwots, xii. 2. 
dvaxeparaovoba, xiii. g: cf. Lift. 
Notes, p. 321 f. 
dvadoyia, xii. 6. 
dvamodoyntés, i. 203 ii. 1. 
dvaoraats, i. 4; p. 18. 
dvefepevvntos, xi. 33. 
av@paé, xii. 20. 
dvOpwmvov Aéyo, vi. 19. 
GvOpwnos, ix. 20. 
6 €ow, vii. 22. 
6 madatds, vi. 6; pp. 172, 174 
dvopia, vi. 19. 
avoxn, ii. 4. 
dytamddopa, xi. 9. 
avritdocecOat, xiii. 2. 
dvumdéxpitos, xii. 9. 
Ggios . .. mpéds, viii. 18. 
dfiws, xvi. 2. 
drapx7, Vili. 23; xi. 16; xvi. 5. 
drexdéxecOat, Vili. 19. 
dmortia, dmorey, iii. 3. 
amdérns, xii. 8. 
dé, i. 20; dd pépous, xv. 15. 
dwoBoAn, xi. 14. 
dnobvnckeay, vi. 7, IO. 
atokadvnreoOa, 1. 18. 
dmoxddviis, viii. 19. 
droxapadokia, viii. 19. 
aroAapBavey, i. 27. 


drodvtpaos, iii. 24: cf. Lft. ad loc. 


and p. 316. 
dnéaroAos, i. 1; xvi. 7; p. 18. 
drori@ec@at, xiii. 12. 
GmoTOApGy, X. 20. 
amm@aAcia, ix. 22. 
dpa ovv, v. 18; vii. 25; ix. 16, 18. 
apéonew, xv. I. 
apxn, Vili. 38. 
acéBea, i, 18, 
doeBys, iv. Bo 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


doédryea, xiii. 13. 
doGévea, vi. 19; Vili. 
doGeveiv, xiv. I. 

dodevns, v. 6. 

*Agta, xvi. 5. 

darovbos, i. 31 (v. L). 
dowveros, i. 31. 
dripacecOat, i. 24. 

aités, i. 24; ix. 3; XV. Iq 
avirov (emphatic), iii. 24. 
[abrov, i. 24.] 

dpopifev, i. 1; p. 18. 
dpopyn, vii. 8. 

*Axaia, xvi. 5 (v. L). 
dxpeovaGat, ili. 12. 


Baad, %, xi. 4. 

Baéos, viii. 39; xi. 33. 
BanrifecOa eis, vi. 3. 
BapBapos, i. 14. 

Baotdeia Tod @eod, xiv. 17. 
Bacthevew, V. 14, 17; Vi. 12. 
Baordleayv, xv. I. 
BdedrAvoceo Gat, ii. 22. 
Aijya, xiv. to. 
Brachnpuetcba, xiv. 16. 
BovAnpa, ix. 19. 
[BovAopat, p. 182.] 
Bpaats, xiv. 17. 


yeyerjcba, xv. 8. 

yeyova, ii. 25 ; xvi. 7. 

yévorTo, ph, iii. 4; xl. 1, IT. 

yivecOa, i. 3; iii. 4. 

ywooney, ii, 2; vi. 63 vii 7, IB, 
(viii. 29]. 

yvmots, xv. 14. 

yard, 76, i. 19. 

ypappa, vii. 6. . 

ypag7, i. 2; p. 18: cf. Deissmann, 
Pp. 109. 


dé, iii. 22; ix. 30; xi. 13. 

det, viii. 26. 

did, i. 8; ii. 27; iii. 25, 29; iv. En, 
25; xiv. 20; p. 11g. 

5: éautov, xiv. 14. 

diabHKn, ix. 4. 

diaxovety, xv. 25. 

diaxovia, xii. 7. 

diaxovos, xv. 8; xvi. I. 

diaxpivecOa, iv. 20; xiv. 33. 

didxpiots, xiv. I. 

diadoyiopos, i. 21; Xiv. I. 

diacroAn, x. 12. 

diapépova, ré, ii. 18 [=LR} 

ddacKxaria, xv. 4. 


Ill. GREEK WORDS 44! 


Bday, vi 175 xvi. 37. 

d:épxeoGat, v. 12. 

dixacoxpiata, ii. 5. 

Sixaios, i. 27; iii. 26; v.73 p. a8 f. 
» Pp. 28 ff., 392. 

ducaosivy Gcod (} dx. Tov Sco), i. 


17; ; tii, 15, 21, 255 X- 33 Pp: 34 ff 
dixasod 


ever his remarks on dfsovv, JVotes, 
P. 105). 
a, i. 32; v. 16, 18; viii. 4; 
Pp. 31 1 (ef. Lf. p. 292). 
» iv. 25; v. 183 pp- 31, 


oe a 

défa, i. 23; iti. 235 v. 25 vi. 43 Vili 
18, 21; ix. 4; xv. 73; xvi 27. 

BogaCer, i. 21; Vili. 30; xi. 133 XV. 9. 

Bovdcia, viii. 15, ai. 

SovAos, i. 1; p. 18. 

Sivas, i, 4, 16; viii. 38. 

Sivacbar, xvi. 25. 

duvareiy, xiv. 4 

éuvarés, xii. 18. 

bein, xv. 5- 

deped, V. 15. 


bynadreiv, viii. 33. 
é-yeevTpeiv, xi. 17. 
eyxérrewy, Xv. 22. 
edododeay, i iii. 13. 

€Ov7, i i. 5; il. 14; ix. 30. 
see 6 (v. L); [iii 30]. 


elmo, i, 10; xi. 14. 

cpipn, & 73. I; viii. 6; xiv. 17; 
Xv. 13, 33 5 xvi. 20; p. 18. 

rp ties 26; iv. 35 viii, 18; xi. 363 


txxAnola, xvi. 5, 16; p. 18. 
éxxdiveay, xvi. 17. 
tercerés, viii. 33; xvi. 135 p- 4- 
tedo7y7, xi. 7, 28. 
war’ éxAoyjy, ix. Eg xi. 5; 
P- 250. 
txrirresy, ix. 6. 
éxxuvey, Vv. 5. 
éhacaam, i ix. 52. 
éAeay, ix. 15; xii. 8. 
eAevdepia, Viii. 21. 
EAAqY, i. 14. 
eAdoyeiaba (AAoyacbat), v. 13. 
re Vv. 43 Vili. 24; xii. 125; xv. 4, 


nil Fa 18 (otherwise Lft.), 19, 233 xi 
2, 25; xv. 6: cf. Deissmann, p. 
115 ff. 

& Kupiy, xvi, 13. 

év Kupigr "Ingoi, xiv. 14. 

éy Xpiord, ix. 1; xvi. 7. 

ev XpicT@ "Iqa0d, i iii. 24; vi. 31. 
ey capxi, viii. 9. 

év mvevpart, Vili. 9. 

é gy, Viii. 3. 

évdeixvucbat, ii. 15; ix. 17, 23. 

évberfis, iii. 25, 2 

evduvayodcba, iv. 20. 

bvoxeiv, vii. 17 ; viii. 11. 

évTOXh, vii. 8. 

évrvyxavev, xi. a: cf. Deissmann, 
p. 117f. 

tanaray, vii. 11. 

eeyeipev, ix. 17. 

efoporoyeiaba, xiv. II. 

efougia, ix. 21; xiii. 1. 

émaryyeAia, iv. 13; ix. 4, 83 p. 18 
(cf. Lft. on iv. 21). 

éxawvos, ii. 29. 

émacxtvecbat, i i. 16, 

émavapipvnocKev, XV. 15. 

émavamavecbat, ii. 17. 


eet, iii. 6. 
éni, i. 9, 11; iv. 18; v. 2; viii. 20 
eg’ Py. v. 12. 


ériyvmots, i. 28; iii. 20; x. 2. 

ém@upetv, tmOupia, vii. 7; Pp. 375- 

émadetoOat, X. 12, 13, 14. 

émpévey, xi. 22. 

émmoOety, i, II. 

émmoGia, XV. 23 

éionuos, xvi. 7. 

emredeiv, xy. 28. 

émmépev, iii. 5- 

érovouaCerBat, i ii. 17. 

viz 70 épyov, ii. 15; xiil. 33 xiv. 
} Pp» 102. 


446 


é petv— 
épets ody, ix. 19; xi. 19. 
ti Epodpey, iii. 5. 
th obv épodpev, iv. 1; vi. 13 vii. 
7; Vili. 315 ix. 14. 
ep. Oela, ii. 8. 
todiew, xiv. 2, 3, 6. 
repos, vii. 23. 
én, iii. 7; v. 6; ix. 19. 
evayyeriCecda, x. 15; p. §f. 
evayyéALov, 1.1; x. 16; xi. 28; p. 18. 
evayyéAdv pou, ii. 16; xvi. 25. 
evdpeoros, xii. I. 
evdoxetv, xv. 26 f. 
evdoxia, x. I. 
evrAoyetv, xii. 14. 
edAoynrés, i. 25; ix. 53 p. 236: cf. 
Lft., p. 310. 
evdoyia, xv. 29; xvi. 18. 
evodovcba, i, 10 (=Lfit.). 
eipioxey, iv. I (v. 1.; on the reading 
see also Lft.). 
evUxeoOat, ix. 3. 
épanaf, vi. Io. 
ep’ @, v. 12. 
éxev, i. 28; iv. a; v. 1, 2 (=Lft.). 
€xOpos, p. 129 f. 


(éew, xii. 11. 

GijAos, x. 2. 

av, vii. 9 (cf. Lft.); x g5 xil. 1; 
xiv. 9. 

(on, viii. 6; xi. 15. 

(womaeiv, iv. 17. 


§, iil. 29; xi. 2. 
}) dyvoeire, vi. 3; vii. I. 
wai, ii. 15. 
To... 7, vi. 16. 

H5n, i. 103 xiii. 11 

*"HAelas, xi. 2. 

Epa, ii. 5. 

ArT pya, xi. 12, 


Odvatos, 3, v. 12, 

(=ERE) $ viii 24: 
Oavarovcbat, vii. 4. 
Oeidr7s, i. 20. 
Oéray, vii. 15; ix. 16. 
6éAnua, 74, i. 10; ii. 18; xii. a. 
OepéAtov, xv. 20. 
@eds, p. 237. 

Geds narnp, i. 7; p. 18. 

Geoatvyns, i. 30 (cf. Lft.). 
oops, ee A 
OAtis, li. 95 V. 3; Vili. 35; xii. 12. 


a1; vi. 3, 4 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Oupéds, ii. 8. 
6vota, xii. 1. 


Sos, vill. 32; x. 3: see however 
Deissmann, p. 120 f, 

lepoavaciy, ii. 22. 

lepoupyeiv, xv. 16. 

“IepovoaAnp, xv. 19. 

"Inoots Xpioros, i. 13 pp. 3 f., 83 £, 
160 f. 

lkavés, xv. 23 (v. 1). 

laaornpiov, iii. 253 pp. 92, 130: 
comp. Lft. and Deissmann, p.1a1 ff. 

upikdv, XV. 19. 

iva, v. 20; xi. IT. 

igs, iii. 13. 

Ioviatos, ii. 17, 29; p. 229. 

"Icpana, ix. 6. 

"Iopandirns, ix. 4; p. 64. 

loravat, iii. 31; xiv. 4. 


wankovta, Td, i, 28. 

xaficrava, v. 19. 

«00, viii. 26, 

«adopay, i. 20. 

waupos, iii. 26; xii. 11 (v. L) 3 xiii. 11. 
«ata kapéy, ward tov Kaspdy, v. 

6; ix. 9. 

xaxta, i. a9. 

kaxonOeta, 1. 29. 

kadeiv, iv. 17; vill. 303 ix. 7. 

Kad@s, Xi. 20. 

xapdia, i, 21. 

kaptropopeiv, vii. 4 (otherwise Lft.). 

ward, ii. 5; viii. 27; xi. 28; xv. g. 
wad’ els, xii. 5. 
xat’ olkov, Xvi. 5. 

watayey, x. 6. 

Karacxvvey, V. 5; ix. 33. 

katakavxao0a, xi. 18. 

waTakptpa, Viil. 1. 

waraxpivey, Vill. 3. 

kaTadddos, i. 30. 

wxaTadapBavew, ix. 30. 

wkatadAayh, V. Il; xi 18. 

KkaTadAagoe, ¥. 10, 

katadveww, XiV. 20. 

watavoety, iv. 19. 

karavvtis, xi. 8. 

karapyéiv, iii. 3, 31 ; Vi 6; vil. 2, 6. 

watapriCey, ix. 22. 

waTagppoveiy, ii. 4. 

warévayTt, iv. 17. 

Karepyatec@at, ii. 9; Vil. 15. 

waréxeyv, kaTéxecOa, i, 18 (otherwise 

Lft.) ; vii. 6. 
warnyopeiv, ii. 15. 


Ill. 


anpiooev, X. 14, 15. 
xivduvos, viii. 35. 
wAdéos, xi. 16. 
xAnpovépos, iv. 13, 143 viil. 17. 
wAjjots, xi. 29. 
wAnrés, i. 1, 6,7; viii. 28; p. 18. 
KAnT} dyic, p- 12f 
«Alya, xv. 23. 
cola, xvi. 18, 
xowés, xiv. 14. 
kowovely, xii. 13; xv. 37. 
Kowovia, xv. 26. 
xoitn, xiii. 13. 
woltny ro bye, ix. 10. 
komiay, Xvi 
xéopos, d, iii. 6; v. 12. 
epivey, xpivec@as, iii. 4; xiv. 5, 13. 
xriots, i. 203 vill. 19, 21, 39. 
KuKhy, Xv. 19. 
xupievety, Vi. Q. 
Kupios, i. 4, 73 x. 12, 133 xii. 115 
xiv. 8; xv. 6; p. 18. 
K@pos, Xiv. 14. 


Aaheiy, iii. 19. 
Aaéds, xi. 1. 
Aarpeia, ix. 4; xi 1. 
Aatpevery, i. 9. 
Adxava, xix. 2. 
Aeyew, iii. 19. 
addAa Aeym, | x. 18, I9. 
Ayn ovy, xi. I, II. 
Aciupa, xi. 5. 
pee p- 
p- 137f 
Aecroupyés, xiii. 6; xv. 16. 
Adya 74, iii. 2. 
Aoyiteada:, viii. 18; xiv. 14. 
AoyifecOa els, ii. 26; iv. 3 
Aoyixes, xii. 1. 
Aoyopds, ii. 15. 
Adyos, iii. 4; ix. 6. 
Avmetoat, xiv. 15. 


Avan, ix. 2. 


paxdptos, iv. 7, : xiv. 23. 
paxapioysds, i ? 

paxpobupia, 

Mapla (Mapsés), xvi. 6 (¥. 1. 
paprupeiy, iii. 21; x. 3. 


20: cf. Deissmann, 


GREEK WORDS 


paraérys, viii. 20, 
paraovcbat, i. a1. 
uaxatpa, viii. 35- 
pelCov, ix. 12. 
pOAay, viii. 18, 
péAdoM, 6, V. 14. 
péy, x. I. 
pev ovv, xi. 13; p. 324. 
pevovvye, ix, 20; x, 18. 
péveiy, ix. 11. 
peords, i. 29; Xv. 14. 
peTadiddvar, xii. 8. 
peTapoppovaba, xii. 2. 
perafd GAAnAoy, ii. 15. 
wh, ii. 14; iii. 53 iv. 19; ix. 14; 
x. 


Be yevoro, iii. 4; ix. 14; xi. 1, 
die 
HPht, ix. 11. 
pveia, xii, 13 (v. 1). 
pévos, xvi. 26. 
péppwors, ii, 20. 
puoTnpiov, Xi, 25; Xvi. 25. 


vexpés, i. 4 (cf. Lft.) ; viii. 10; xi. 15. 
ée vexpov, vi. 13 (cf. Lft.). 
ynmos, ii. 20. 
may, iii. 4; xii. 1. 
vopobecia, ix. 4. 
véyos, metaphorical use of, iii. 27; vii. 
Alsat. Wilt 2s. Xnit Ko 
vdpos (sine artic.), ii. 12, 13, 14, 25; 
fi; 33- (ef Eft.) ; iv. 133 Vv. E32; 
vii. 1; ix. 315 x. 4. 
vépos, 6, ii. 13,14; ili. 19; vii. a, 
12. 
vous, i. 28; vii. 23; xii. 2. 
vuvi, iii, a1. 


d5ny6s, ii. 19. 

otdapey, ii. 2; viii. 22, 28. 

oixodopum, xiv. 19. 

olxreipey, ix. 15. 

oixTippés, xii. I. 

olos, ix. 6 

éxvnpés, xii. 11. 

dos, viii. 36. 

dpobupaddy, xv. 6. 

dpoiwpa, vi. 5; viil. 3. 

dpodoyeiv, ix. 9. 

éverdiopds, xv. 3. 

dvoua, i. 5; p. 18 

évopa ey, xv. 20. 

SrAov, vi. 13. 

Stas av, iii. 4. 

épyi, 4 épyn, i. 18; ii. 5, 8; iii. 5; 
xii, 19; xiii. 4 


448 


Spey, 1. 4. 
és ye, viii. 32. 
Sons, i. 25, 32; ti 15; vi. a; ix. 4 
Sr, viii. aI, 27, 29; ix. 2. 
ob Fy, iv. 8. 
ov pdévoy 8é, viii. 23; ix. 10. 
od mdyrws, iii. 9. 
oby, ii. 21; iii, 28 (v. L); x 14; xii. 
I; P- 294. 
épeiray, xiii. 8 ; 
éydnov, vi. 23: ge La. and Deiss- 
mann, p. 145 f. 


whOnpa, vii. 5- 
maideurhs, ii. 20. 
mahads dvOpamos, vi. 6, 
ways, iii. g. 
wapd, i. 35. 
map’ éavrois, xii, 16. 
wapéfaais, iv. 15. 
wapadidévas, i. 24; iv. 255 vi. 17. 
wapa(nAoiy, x.19; xi. II. 
wapaxcio6as, vii. 18, aI. 
wapako7, Vv. 19 
ae rs 153 xi. rz (cf. Lft. on 
V. 20). 
wapd«A7nois, XV. §. 
waperoépxeoOas, v. 20, 
wd pects, ili. 25. 
wapordvat, ie at wi. 13; xii. 1. 
wapovaia, pp. 379 f. 
was, ix. 5; x. 1 3 xi. 26, 32. 
nathp, 6, i. 7; vi 43 viii. 15 ; cf. xv. 6. 
wa er Co pee Se XO xi. 28 ; 


otnite, ii. 19. 
wepi duaprlas, viii. 3. 
wepimarety, xiii. 13. 
wepooeia, Vv. 17. 
wepioods, iii. I. 
weptoph, ii. 29; xv. 8 
mrss, i iv. 21. 
wixpia, iii. 14. 
mdT7s, xi. 17. 
winrev, xi. 11, 32; xiv. 4. 
morevev, motevecat, ili, 2; X. 105 
xiv. 2. 
siotis, iii. 22; pp. 31 ff. 
sions, }, i. 8, evi iii. 3. 53 ‘ 
20; v. 2; x. 8, 17; xii. 
xiv. I, 
sions *Ingov Xprorod, iii. 23. 
els sion, anys 
be aiarews, i. 17; iii. 26, 30 (cf. 
Lft.); ix. 30, 32; x.6; xiv. 23. 
wAdopa, ix. 20. 
sAcovd{ay, V. 20. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


mAcovefia, i. a9. 
mAnpodv, xv. Ig. 
mAnpopopeiv, wAnpopopeiabas, fv. 23; 
xiv. 5; xv. 13 (v.1). 
sAfpopa, xi. 12, 255 XV. 29. 
mwAouteiv, X. 12, 
mAovTos, ix. 23; xi. 12. 
mvevya, Vill. 9, 10, 11; xii. 11; xv. 30, 
Dvedpa “Ayjiov, v. 5; ix. 13 xiv. 
17; Xv. 13, 16, 19. 
mvevpa @coU, viii. 9, 14. 
meta Xpiorod, viii. 9. 
mvetpa dymotvys, i. 4. 
mvevya dovAcias, viii. 15. 
wveipa karavigens, xi. 8. 
wvetpa vloGecias, viii. 15. 
&y avevpart, & = —— ig; 
ii. 29 ; viii. 9; ix. 1. 
Kara Tvedpa, i. 4; at 4) 5 
mvevyatikés, i, IL; We 145 aL 141 
xv. 27. 
woeiv, i, 32. 
wodAol, ol, v. 15. 
Toad, 7d, XV. 22. 
wovnpia, i. 29. 
mopvela, i. 29 (v. 1.). 
mpoyiwwoney, Vili. 293 XL. Bo 
wpoypispew, Xv. 4. 
mpod.dévas, xi. 35. 
mpoeipnkévat, ix. 29. 2 
mpoemayyéAAeaOat, i, Bo r 
mpoerorpacerv, ix. 23. ; 
mpoéxeaOat, ili. 9. 
mponyeiaOar, xii. 10. 


mpddcais, viii. 28; ix. I1 5 Pp. 38O. i 


mpd0upos, i. 15. 
mpotoracOa, xii. 8. 
wpokémrey, xiii. 12. 
mpovoeioOa, xii. 17. 
mpoopiCey, viii. 29. 
mpowarop, iv. I. 
mpoméumew, XV. 24. 
mpés, iii. 26; viii. 18. 
wpocayoryf, ¥. 2. 
mpookaprepeiv, xii. 12. 
wpécxoppa, ix. 32; xiv. 13 (v.1.). 
mpoodapBaverbat, xiv. I. 
mpdadnyis, xi. 15. 
mpooraris, Xvi. 2. 
mpoopopa, xv. 16, 
mpoowmodnpia, ii. II. 
mporidecOa, iii. 25 (otherwise Lit. ed 

lo., cf. p. 318). 
mpopnreia, xii. 6. 
mpopntixds, xvi. 26. 
mparoy, i. 16 (v. L). 
mparos, X. 19. 


III. GREEK WORDS 


sperrdroxos, viii. 29. 


utaiev, xi. II. 
wTaxés, xv. 26, 
apour, xi. 7- 
weipwois, xi. 25. 


pijpa, x. 8, 17. 

pia, xi. 16 ff. ; xv. 22, 
udpevos, 6, xi. 26. 
Papn, i. 7. 


eapxixés, xv. 27. 
Capxwvos, vii. 14. 
wares 8 20; vi. 19; ix. 8; xiii. 14; 

. 183. 

ty capst, év rz capxl, vii. 5; 
3), 9- 
ward odpka, i. 3; iv. 1; viii. 4, 
53 ix. 3,53 P- 233 

Zaravas, xvi. 20; p. 145. 
aeBa{ecbat, 1.45. 
onpetoy, iv. 11 ; xv. 19. 
oxaydador, xi. 9; xiv. 13 
OxKevos, ix. 21, 22. 
oxAnpuvey, ix. 18, 
Oxoneiy, XVi. 17. 
Zravia, xv. 24, 28. 
oxépya, 1x: 7- 
oxovo7, xii. 8, II. 
orevoxwpia, ii. 
oThKey, xiv. Ped 
ornpifeav, i. 11; xvi. 25. 
orotxeiv, iv. 12 (on Tols crx. see 


ovyyerns, ix. 3; xvi. 7, 10, 21. 
ovykAciayv, xi. 32. 
ovyednpovépos, viii. 17. 
ovyxowenss, Soe e 
uppaprupely, ii, 15; viii. 16; ix. 1. 
cuppophos, viii. 29. 
Cupmapaxadciobat, i 1. 12. 
oupnagxey, viii. 17. 
ovppuros, Vi. 5. 
ovvayoviferba, XV. 30. 
ouvaixpadwros, Xvi. 7. 
CuvavaTavecOat, XV. 32. 
ouvayTiAapBavecOat, viii, 26. 
owandyeOat, xii. 16. 
ouvelinars, ii. 15; ix. 1. 
owvepyeiy, Vill. 28. 
ouvevioxeiy, i. 32. 
owvdrreaGat, vi. 4. 
ounordyat, i iii. 5; xvi. I. 
ovr, iii. II. 

ouvredeiv, ix. 28. 
ovrrépveyv, ix. 28. 
cuv7piBey, xvi. 20, 


449 


otryrpippa, iii. 16. 

ouvodivery, viii. 22. 

ovaravpoicbat, vi. 6. 

ovoxnparicerbar, xii. 2. 

opayn, viii. 36. 

ogpayifey, xv. 28. 

ogpayis, iv. 11. 

oalev, calecOa, v. 9; Vill, 243 xb 
26: cf. Lft. p. 288. 

o@pa, vi. 6; vii. 4, 243 xii. 5. 

Zaciwarpos, xvi. 21. 

caurnpia, i, 16; x. 1; xi 1. 


tamewvés, xii. 16. 
Te yap, Vii. 7. 
Téxvoy, viii. 14, 173 ix. 8 (cf. Deiss- 
mann, p. 164 
tédos (send) 3 x. 43 (=toll), xiii. 7. 
ti Epodper, i iii. 5. 
ti ovv; iii. 9; vi. 15; xi. 7. 
vi oby epodper ; iv. 1; vi. 1; vib 
73 Vili. 31; ix. 14, 30. 
GAa ti Adyar; x. 853 xi y 
Tinh, xii. 10. 
TiWés, iii. 3\5) xi 17- 
70 war’ éyé, i. 15. 
ToApay, V. 7. 
ToAunpérepov, XV. 15. 
témos, xii. 19; xv. 23. 
tov with infin., vi. 6; vil. 3 
Tpame(a, xi. 9. 
TpaxnAos, xvi 
TUmos, V. 143 Vi. 17. 


bBporys, i. 30. 

viodecia, viii. 15. 

vids (of Christ; cf. Deissmann, p.166 £.), 
4, Vili. 29; (of man), vill. 14 

ipérepos, xi. 31. 

imaxon, i. 5 5 v. 193 xvi. 19. 

braxovew, x. 1 

iravdpos, vii. &y 

indpxey, iv. 19. 

bepevrvyxaveiy, viii. 26, 

trepéxery, xiii. I. 

trepypavos, i. 30. 

imepyicdy, viii. 37- 

imeprepocevay, v. 30. 

imepppoveiy, xii. 3. 

tnd, iii. 9. 

inbd.K08, iii. 19. 

tréAeua, ix. 27. 

bropévew, xii. 12. 

imoporh, Vv. 3- 

a ixotdccecOa, Vii 303 & 

3; xiii. 1. 
borepeiaban, iii. 23. 


6g 


45° 


tynrbs, xii. 16. 
GYoya, viii. 39. 


palveadat, vii. 13. 
pavepotiobay, iii. 21; xvi. 26. 
pavros, ix. II. 

peldecOat, Vili. 32, 

peavey, ix. 31. 

piradedgia, xii. 10, 

giAciv, p. 374£ 

girnya, xvi. 16. 

proferia, xii. 13. 
piAdatopyos, xii. 10, 
piAoripeiaba, Xv. 20. 

pépos, xiii. 6. 

pparrery, iil. 19. 

ppoveiy, viii. 5; xii. 16; xiv. 6; xv. 5. 
ppéynua, viii. 6. 

dpovipos, xi, 25; xii. 16. 
gurdacay, ii. 26. 

pupapa, ix. a1; xi. 16. 
guois, ii, 14. 

xepd, xiv. 175 xv. 13. 


xdpis, 1. 55 Vv. a 15 5 al be 6% mi 33 
XV. 15; xvi. 20; p. 18 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


xdps wal elphvn, i. 7. 
xépiopa, i. 11; vi 233 mi 6; pM 
358 ff. 


xpeia, xii. 13. 

Xpnpaticey, vii. 3. 

Xpnuatiopes, xi. 4. 

xpnororoyia, xvi. 18. 

xpnorsrns, i ii, 4; iii. 123 xb. 22. 

ae Bhs viii. 34 (y. 1), 393 PP 

3f., 160 

éy Xpior@ "Ino0), iii. 24; vi. 11. 
éy XpiaT@, ix. 1; xvi. 7. 


pev8ouar, ix, L 
pevddos, ¥ 25. 
yevopa, iii. 7. 
pevarns, iii, 4 
yx, ti. 9; xili 1. 


Bere (with indie), vil. 4; (with infim.), 


The international Critical Conunentary. 





“ 4 decided advance on all other commentaries.’ — THE OUTLOOK. 


DEUTERONOMY. 


By the Rev. Ss. R. DRIVER, DD.; D.Litt., 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford 





-—— 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


—_ 


“Neo one could be better qualified than Professor Driver to write a critical 
and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy. His previous works are author- 
ities in all the departments involved; the grammar and lexicon of the Hebrew 
language, the lower and higher criticism, as well as exegesis and Biblical the- 
ology; .. . the interpretation in this commentary is careful and sober in the 
main. A wealth of historical, geographical, and philological information illus- 
trates and elucidates both the narrative and the discourses. Valuable, though 
concise, excursuses are often given.” — The Congregationalist. 


“Tt is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament commentary 
in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially one of such merit. 
This I find superior to any other Commentary in any language upon Deuter- 
onomy.” — Professor E. L. Curtis, of Yale University. 


“This volume of Professor Driver’s is marked by his well-known care and 
accuracy, and it will be a great boon to every one who wishes to acquire a 
thorough knowledge, either of the Hebrew language, or of the contents of the 
Book of Deuteronomy, and their significance for the development of Old Tes- 
tament thought. The author finds scope for displaying his well-known wide 
and accurate knowledge, and delicate appreciation of-the genius of the 
Hebrew language, and his readers are supplied with many carefully con- 
structed lists of words and expressions. He is at his best in the detailed 
examination of the text.” — London Atheneum. 


“Tt must be said that this work is bound to take rank among the best com- 
mentaries in any language on the important book with which it deals. On 
every page there is abundant evidence of a scholarly knowledge of the litera- 
ture, and of the most painstaking care to make the book useful to thorough 
students.” — The Lutheran Churchman. 


“The deep and difficult questions raised by Deuteronomy are, in every in- 
stance, considered with care, insight, and critical acumen. The student who 
wishes for solid information, or a knowledge of method and temper of the 
ew criticism, will find advantage in consulting the pages of Dr. Driver.” == 
Cion’s Herald. 


Lhe Znternational Oritical Commentary. 





“We believe this series to be of epoch-making importance.” 
— The N. Y. EvanceE.ist. 


JUDGES. 


By Dr. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D., 
., Professor of Theology, Harvard University. 





Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


“The typographical execution of this handsome volume is worthy of the 
scholarly character of the contents, and higher praise could not be given it.” 
— Professor C. H. Toy, of Harvard University. 


“This work represents the latest results of ‘Scientific Biblical Scholarship,’ 
and as such has the greatest value for the purely critical student, especially on 
the side of textual and literary criticism.” — The Church Standard. 


“Professor Moore has more than sustained his scholarly reputation in this 
work, which gives us for the first time in English a commentary on Judges not 
excelled, if indeed equalled, in any language of the world.” — Professor 
L. W. BATTEN, of P. £. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


“ Although a critical commentary, this work has iis practical uses, and by 
its divisions, headlines, etc., it is admirably adapted to the wants of all 
thoughtful students of the Scriptures. Indeed, with the other books of the 
series, it is sure to find its way into the hands of pastors and scholarly lay- 
men.” — Portland Zion’s Herald. 


“ Like its predecessors, this volume will be warmly welcomed — whilst to 
those whose means of securing up-to-date information on the subject of which 
it treats are limited, it is simply invaluable.” — Edinburgh Scotsman. 


“ The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and indifference 
to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing. .. . Itisanoble 
introduction to the moral forces, ideas, and influences that controlled the 
period of the Judges, and a model of what a historical commentary, with a 
practical end in view should be.” — The Independent. 


“The work is marked by a clear and forcible style, by scholarly research, t_ 
critical acumen, by extensive reading, and by evident familiarity with the 
Hebrew. Many of the comments and suggestions are valuadie, while ine 
index at the close is serviceable and satisfactory.” — chiladelphia Presbyterian. 


“This volume sustains the reputation of the series for accurate and wide 
scholarship given in clear and strong English, . . . the scholarly reader will 
find delight in the perusal of this admirable commentary.” — Zion’s Herald. 


She International Critica? Commentarp, 


= 





— 


_ & Richly helpful to scholars and ministers.”—Tue PRESBYTERIAN BANNER 


The Books of Samuel 


By 
REV. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., 
Profess~ of Biblical History and Interpretation in Amherst College. 


Crown 8vo, Net $3.00. 


««Protessor Smith’s Commentary will for some time be the standarg 
work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work sq 
faithfully accomplished.” —7he Atheneum. 


“‘It is both critical and exegetical, and deals with original Hebrew and 
Greek. It shows painstaking diligence and considerable research,” — 7 he 
Presbyterian. 


“« The style is clear and forcible and sustains the well-won reputation of 
the distinguished author for scholarship and candor. All thoughtful stu- 
dents of the Scriptures will find the work helpful, not only on account of its 
specific treatment of the Books of Samuel, on which it is based, but because 
of the light it throws on and the aid it gives in the general interpretation of 
the Scriptures as modified by present-day criticism.”—T7he Philadelphia 
Press. 


“The literary quality of the book deserves mention. We do not usually 
go to commentaries for models of English style. But this book has a dis- 
tinct, though unobtrusive, literary flavor. It is delightful reading. The 
translation is always felicitous, and often renders further comment need- 
less.” — The Evangelist. 


‘<The treatment is critical, and at the same time expository. Conserva- 
tive students may find much in this volume with which they cannot agree, 
but no one wishing to know the most recent conclusions concerning this 
part of sacred history can afford to be without it.”—/Philadelphia Presby- 
terian Journal. 


*‘The author exhibits precisely that scholarly attitude which will com- 
mend his work to the widest audience.” — The Churchman. 


‘‘The commentary is the most complete and minute hitherto published 
by an English-speaking scholar.” —Literature. 


“The volumes of Driver and Moore set a high standard for the Old 
Testament writers; but I think Professor Smith’s work has reached the 
same high level. It is scholarly and critical, and yet it is written in a spirit 
of reverent devotion, a worthy treatment of the sacred text.”,-—Pror, L. W. 
Batten, of P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


The Internationa’ Critica Commentary. 


———— 


* A duided 2dvance on all other commentaries."—~THE OUTLOOK 








PROVERBS 


By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D., LL.D. 
Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 








“In careful scholarship this volume leaves nothing to be desired. Its in- 
terpretation is free from theological prejudice. It will be indispensable to 
the careful student, whether Jay or clerical.”— Zhe Outlook. 


** Professor Toy’s ‘Commentary’ will for many years to come remain a 
handbook for both teachers and learners, and its details will be studied with 
critical care and general appreciation.” — Zhe Atheneum. 


‘«The commentary itself is a most thorough treatment of each verse in 
detail, in which the light of the fullest scholarship is thrown upon the mean- 
ing. The learning displayed throughout the work is enormous. Here is a 
commentary at last that does not skip the hard places, but grapples with 
every problem and point, and says the best that can be said.”—-Presbylerian 
Banner. 


‘* Professor Toy’s commentary on Proverbs maintains the highest standard 
of the International Critical Commentaries. We can give no higher praise. 
Proverbs presents comparatively few problems in criticism, but offers large 
opportunities to the expositor and exegete. Professor Toy’s work is 
thorough and complete.”—7Zhe Congregationalist. 


‘«This addition to ‘The International Critical Commentary’ has the same 
characteristics of thoroughness and painstaking scholarship as the preceding 
issues of the series. In the critical treatment of the text, in noting the 
various readings. and the force of the words in the original Hebrew, it leaves 
nothing to be desired.” — Zhe Christian Intelligencer. 


«A first-class, up-to-date, critical and exegetical commentary on the Book 
of Proverbs in the English language was one of the crying needs of Biblical 
scholarship. Accordingly, we may not be yielding to the latest addition to 
the International Critical Series the tribute it deserves, when we say that it 
at once takes the first place in its class. That place it undoubtedly deserves, 
however, and would have secured even against much more formidable com- 
petitors than it happens tc have. It is altogether a well-arranged, lucid 
exposition of this unique book in the Bible, based on a careful study of the 
text and the linguistic and historical background of every part of it.”—7he 
interior. 

‘« While this commentary is called ‘critical’ and is such, it is not one in 
which the apparatus is spread out in detail; it is one which any intelli- 
gent English reader can readily use and thoroughly understand ”"—Zhe 
Evangelist. 


The Zuternational Critical Commentary. 





AMOS AND HOSEA. 


By WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D. 


Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the University of Chicago. 





Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. Postage, 20 cents. 





** His book combines thorough technical scholarship with large measure of 
ethical and spiritual insight, and we think his Commentary on Amos and Hosea 
will take its place among the best in this very excellent series.’ — The Outlook. 


* Tt is unnecessary to say that in scholarly completeness, Dr. Harper’s volume 
ranks with the best of the International Critical Commentary Series.” — The 
Standard, 


“The commentary is remarkable for its clear analysis, and exhaustive in its 
minute completeness. It furnishes materials to the student from which he may 
torm his own judgment rather than seeks to impress dogmatic conclusions.” 
— The Watchman. 


“TI think it safe to say that in no language can there be found such a 
scholarly piece of work on the two important prophets, Amos and Hosea,” — 
Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of St. Mark’s Church, New York 
City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


* Professor Harper’s critical position is that of sound progressive scholar- 
ship. He possesses also the gift of the true teacher of interesting others in 
his subject. The volume will easily take its place as a most important com- 
mentary on these prophets.” — Congregationalist. 


«J shall have pleasure in recommending it to all students in our Seminary. 
This book fills, in the most favorable manner, a long-felt want for a good 
critical commentary on two of the most interesting books in the Old 
Testament.” — Rey. Lewis B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartfo.a 
Theological Seminary. 


“He has gone, with characteristic minuteness, not only into the analysis 
and discussion of each point, endeavoring in every case to be thoroughly 
exhaustive, but also into the history of exegesis and discussion, Nothing at 
all worthy of consideration has been passed by. The consequence is that 
when one carefully studies what has been brought together in this volume, 
either upon some passage of the two prophets treated, or upon some question 
of critical or antiquarian importance in the introductory portion of the volume, 
one feels that he has obtained an adequately exhaustive view of the subject.” 
— The Interior. 


Che International Oritical Commentary, 





“ We deem it as needful for the studious pastor to possess himself 
of these volumes as to obtain the best dictionary and encyclopedia.” 
— THE CONGREGATIONALIST. 


ST. MARK. 


By the Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., 
Late Professor of New Testament Exegesis, P, E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 


“yu point of scholarship, of accuracy, of originality, this last addition to tue, 
series is worthy of its predecessors, while for terseness and keenness of exegesis, 
we should put it first of them all.” — Zhe Congregationalist. 


“The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive critica) 
study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in thu 
English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the proper use a¥ 
a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid.” — The Lutheran Quarterly. 


“ Professor Gould has done his work well and thoroughly. ... The com 
mentary is an admirable example of the critical method at its best... . Tha 
Word study . . . shows not only familiarity with all the literature of the sub. 
ject, but patient, faithful, and independent investigation... . It will rank 
among the best, as it is the latest commentary on this basal Gospel.” — 7h, 
Christian Intelligencer. 


“Tt will give the student the vigorously expressed thought of a very thought 
ful scholar.” — The Church Standard. 


“Dr. Gould’s commentary on Mark is a large success, . . . and a credit ta 
American scholarship. . .. He has undoubtedly given us a commentary on 
Mark which surpasses all others, a thing we have reason to expect will be true 
in the case of every volume of the series to which it belongs.” — The Biblical 
World. 


“The volume is characterized by extensive learning, patient attention to 
details and a fair degree of caution.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 


“The exegetical portion of the book is simple in arrangement, admirable 
in form and condensed in statement. . . . Dr. Gould does not slavishly follow 
any authority, but expresses his own opinions in language both concise and 
clear.” — The Chicago Standard. 


“In clear, forcible and elegant language the author furnishes the results of 
the best investigations on the second Gospel, both early and late. He treats 
these various subjects with the hand of a master.” — Boston Zion’s Herald. 


“The author gives abundant evidence of thorough acquaintance with the 
facts and history in the case... . His treatment of them is always fresh and 
scholarly, and oftentimes helpful.” — Zhe Mew York Observer. 


The International Critical Commentary. 





“Tt is hardly necessary to say that this series will stand first 
among all English serial commentaries on the Bible.” 
— THE BIBLICAL WORLD. 


ST. LUKE. 


By the Rev. ALFRED PLUITIIER, D.D., 


Master of University College, Durham. Formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of 
Trinity College, Oxford, 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


In the author’s Critical Introduction to the Commentary 1s contained a full 
greatment of a large number of important topics connected with the study of 
the Gospel, among which are the following: The Author of the Book — The 
Sources of the Gospel— Object and Plan of the Gospel— Characteristics, 
Style and Language —The Integrity of the Gospel—The Text — Literary 
History. 

FROM THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


If this Commentary has any special features, they will perhaps be found in 
the illustrations from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the 
Septuagint, and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the 
frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin versions, and in the attention 
which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to 
the marks of St. Luke’s style. 


“Tt is distinguished throughout by learning, sobriety of judgment, and 
sound exegesis. It is a weighty contribution to the interpretation of the 
Third Gospel, and will take an honorable place in the series of which it forms 
2 part.” — Prof. D. D. SALMOND, in the Critical Review. 

“We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the iater- 
pretations. ... Itseems to us that the prevailing characteristic of the book 
is common sense, fortified by learning and piety.” — 7he Herald and Presbyter. 

“An important work, which no student of the Word of God can safely 
neglect.” — The Church Standard. 

“The author has both the scholar’s knowledge and the scholar’s spirit 
necessary for the preparation of such a commentary.... We know of 
aothing on the Third Gospel which more thoroughly meets the wants of the 
Biblical scholar.” — The Outlook. 

“The author is not only a profound scholar, but a chastened and reverent 
Christian, who undertakes to interpret a Gospel of Christ, so as to show 
Christ in his grandeur and loveliness of character.” — The Southern Church- 
van. 

“Tt is a valuable and welcome addition to our somewhat scanty stock of 
first-class commentaries on the Third Gospel. By its scholarly thoroughness 
it well sustains the reputation which the INTERNATIONAL SERIES has already 
won.” — Prof. J. H. THAYER, of Harvard University. 

This volume having been so recently published, further notices are not ye 
evailabie. 


Lhe Auternational Critical Commentary 








“ For the student this new commentary promises to be indispen 
sable.” —The METHODIST RECORDER. 


ROMANS. 


By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., 
tady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford 


AND THE 


Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., 
Principal of King’s College, London, : 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


“From my knowledge of Dr. Sanday, and from a brief examination of the 
book, I am led to believe that it is our best critical handbook to the Epistle, 
It combines great learning with practical and suggestive interpretation.” — 
Professor GEORGE B. STEVENS, of Yale University. 

“Professor Sanday is excellent in scholarship, and of unsurpassed candor. 
The introduction and detached notes are highly interesting and instructive. 
This commentary cannot fail to render the most valuable assistance to all 
earnest students. The volume augurs well for the series of which it is a mem- 
ber.” — Professor GEORGE P. FISHER, of Yale University. 

“The scholarship and spirit of Dr. Sanday give assurance of an interpreta- 
tion of the Epistle to the Romans which will be both scholarly and spiritual.” 
— Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT. 

“The work of the authors has been carefully done, and will prove an 
acceptable addition to the literature of the great Epistle. The exegesis is 
acute and learned ... The authors show much familiarity with the work 
of their predecessors, and write with calmness and lucidity.” — Mew York 
Observer. 

“‘ We are confident that this commentary will find a place in every thought- 
ful minister’s library. One may not be able to agree with the authors at some 
points, — and this is true of all commentaries, — but they have given us a work 
which cannot but prove valuable to the critical study of Paul’s masterly epis- 
tle.” — Zion’s Advocate. 

“We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans 
yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable and 
much needed series, by showing that it 1s possible to be critical and scholarly 
and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible 
readers.” — The Church Standard. 

“A commentary with a very distinct character and purpose of its own, 
which brings to students and ministers an aid which they cannot obtain else- 
where. ... There is probably no other commentary in which criticism has 
been employed so successfully and impartially to bring out the author's 
thought.” — WV. Y. Independent. 

“We have nothing but heartiest praise for the weightier matters of the 
commentary. It is not only critical, but exegetical, expository, doctrinal, 
practical, and eminently spiritual. The positive conclusions of the books are 
very numerous and are stoutly, gloriously evangelical. ... The commen 
does not fail to speak with the utmost reverence of the whole word of Gad- 
The Congregationalist 


the Duternational Critical Commentary. 





“This admirable series.".—THE LONDON ACADEMY, 





EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 


By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D. Litt. 


Formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity College. 
Dublin. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 





‘* The latest volume of this admirable series is informed with the very 
best spirit in which such work can be carried out—a spirit of absolute 
fidelity to the demonstrable truths of critical science. . . . This summary 
of the results of modern criticism applied to these two Pauline letters is, 
for the use of scholarly students, not likely to be superseded.” ——Zhe Lon- 
don Academy. 


“« An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none of us can 
afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself mas- 
ter of his theme. His linguistic ability is manifest. His style is usually 
clear. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are especially grateful 
for his strong defence of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great 
monuments of Pauline teaching.”—Zhe Expos‘tor. 


«St displays every mark of conscientious judgment, wide reading, and 
grammatical insight.” —Zz¢erature. 


‘“¢Tn discrimination, learning, and candor, it is the peer of the other vol. 
umes of the series. The elaborate introductions are of special value.”— 
Professor GEORGE B. STEVENS, of Yale University. 


“Tt is rich in philological material, clearly arranged, and judiciously 
handled. The studies of words are uncommonly good. . . . Inthe 
balancing of opinions, in the distinguishing between fine shades of mean- 
ing, it is both acute and sound.” —7Zhe Church. 


‘©The exegesis based so solidly on the rock foundation of philology is 
argumentatively and convincingly strong. A spiritual and evangelical tenor 
pervades the interpretation from first to last. . . . These elements, to- 
gether with the author’s full-orbed vision of the truth, with his discrimina- 
tive judgment and his felicity of expression, make this the peer of any com- 
mentary on these important letters.”— Zhe Standard. 


“« An exceedingly careful and painstaking piece of work. The introduc- 
tory discussions of questions bearing on the authenticity and integrity (of 
the epistles) are clear and candid, and the exposition of the text displays a 
fine scholarship and insight.” —/Vorthwestern Christian Advocate. 


**The book is from first to last exegetical and critical. Every phrase in 
the two Epistles is searched as with lighted candles. The authorities for 
variant readings are canvassed but weighed, rather than counted, The mul- 
tiform ancient and modern interpretations are investigated with the ex- 
haustiveness of a German lecture-room, and the judicial spirit of an English 
court-room. Special discussions are numerous and thorough.”—TZhe Cope 
eregationalsst. 


She Internationa’ Critical Commentary, 





“J have already expressed my conviction that the Inter. 
ational Critical Commentary is the best critical commentary, 
on the whole Bible, in existence.""—Dr, LYMAN ABBOTT. 


Philippians and Philemon 


BY 


REV. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. 
Professor of Biiiical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York, 





Crown 8vo, Net $2.00. 





**Tt is, in short, in every way worthy of the series.”"— The Scotsman. 

‘Professor Vincent’s Commentary on Philippians and Philemon appears 
to me not less admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and its 
clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of these Epistles.” —Dr. 
GEORGE P, FISHER. 


“The book contains many examples of independent and judicial weigh- 
ing of evidence. We have been delighted with the portion devoted to Phile- 
mon. Unlike most commentaries, this may wisely be read as a whole.” — 
The Congregationalist 


‘‘Of the merits of the work it is enough to say that it is worthy of its 
place in the noble undertaking to which it belongs. It is ful? of just such 
information as the Bible student, lay or clerical, needs; and while giving an 
abundance of the truths of erudition to aid the critical student of the text, it 
abounds also in that more popular information which enables the attentive 
reader almost to put himself in St. Paul’s place, to see with the eyes and feel 
with the heart of the Apostle to the Gentiles.” —Boston Advertiser. 


‘Tf it is possible in these days to produce a commentary which will be 
free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias, the feat will be accomplished in 
the International Critical Commentary. . . . It is evident that the writer 
has given an immense amount of scholarly research and original thought to 
the subject. . . . The author’s introduction to the Epistle to Philemon 
is an admirable piece of literature, calculated to arouse in the student’s mind 
an intense interest in the circumstances which produced this short letter from 
the inspired Apostle.” —Commercial Advertiser. 


‘‘His discussion of Philemon is marked by sympathy and appreciation, 
and his full discussion of the relations of Pauline Christianity to slavery are 
interesting, both historically and sociologically.” —7he Dial. : 


‘Throughout the work scholarly research is evident. It commends itself 
by its clear elucidation, its keen exegesis which marks the word study on 
every page, its compactness of statement and its simplicity of arrangement.” 
—Lutheran World. 

‘« The scholarshiv ci the author seems to be fully equal to hist dertaking, 
and he has given to us a fine piece of work. One cannot but sé that if the 
entire series shall be executed upon a par with this portion, thei van be lit- 
tle left co be desired.” —Philadelphia Presbyterian Journal, ‘ 


The International Critical Commentary. 





“The best commentary and the one most useful to the Bible 
~tudent +s The International Critical.” 
_—THE REFORMED CHURCH REVIEW. 


ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE 


By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D. 
Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 





Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 


“ His commentary is very satisfactory indeed. His notes are particularly 
valuable. We know of no work on these Epistles which is so full and satis- 
factory.” — The Living Church. 

“Tt shows an immense amount of research and acquaintanceship with the 
views of the critical school.”—Herald and Presbyter. 

‘«This volume well sustains the reputation achieved by its predecessors. 
The notes to the text, as well as the introductions, are marked by erudition 
at once affluent and discriminating.”— The Outlook. 

‘*Canon Bigg’s work is pre-eminently characterized by judicial open- 
mindedness and sympathetic insight into historical conditions. His realistic 
interpretation of the relations of the apostles and the circumstances of the 
early church renders the volume invaluable to students of these themes, 
The exegetical work in the volume rests on the broad basis of careful lin- 
guistic study, acquaintance with apocalyptic literature and the writings ef 
the Fathers, a sane judgment, and good sense.”—American Journal of 
Theology. 


NUMBERS 


By the Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D. 
Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 


Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 


“*Most Bible readers have the impression that ‘Numbers’ is a dull 
book only relieved by the brilliancy of the Balaam chapters and some 
snatches of old Hebrew songs, but, as Prof. Gray shows with admi- 
rable skill and insight, its historical and religious value is not that 
which lies on the surface. Prof. Gray’s Commentary is distinguished 
by fine scholarship and sanity of judgment; it is impossible to 
commend it too warmly.” —Saturday Review (London). 


The Mnternational 
Theological Library. 





EDITORS’ PREFACE. 


THEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances in recent 
years. New lines of investigation have been opened up, 
fresh light has been cast upon many subjects of the deepest 
interest, and the historical method has been applied with 
important results. This has prepared the way for a Library 
of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. 
It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now 
to secure the services of specialists in the different depart- 
ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enterprise 
which will furnish a record of Theological inquiry up to 
date. 


This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Chris- 
tian Theology. Each volume is to be complete in itself, 
while, at the same time, it will form part of a carefully 
planned whole. One of the Editors is to prepare a volume 
of Theological Encyclopedia which will give the history 
and literature of each department, as well as of Theology 
as a whole. 


The Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books 
for Students of Theology- 


The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compact- 
ness of statement. At the same time, they have in view 
that large and increasing class of students, in other depart- 
ments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thor- 
ough exposition of Theological Science. Technical matters 


EDITORS’ PREFACE. 


will therefore be thrown into the form of notes, and the 
text will be made as readable and attractive as possible. 


The Library is international and interconfessional. It 
will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests 
of Theology as a science. 


Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements both 
of the results of Theological Science and of the questions 
which are still at issue in the different departments. 


The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in 
the several branches of study assigned to them. They will 
be associated with each other and with the Editors in the 
effort to provide a series of volumes which may adequately 
represent the present condition of. investigation, and indi- 
cate the way for further progress. 


CHARLES A. BRIGGS. 
STEWART D. F. SALMOND. 





Theological Encyclopedia. 


An Introduction to the Literature of 
the Old Testament. 


Canon and Text of the Old Testa- 
ment. 


Old Testament History. 


Contemporary History of the Old 
Testament. 

Theology of the Old Testament. 

An Introduction to the Literature 


of the New Testament 


Canon and Text of the New Testa- 
ment. 


The Life of Christ. 


By Cuarres A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt. 
Prof. of Theological Encyclopedia and 
Symbolics, Union Theol. Seminary, N. Y. 

By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford. (Revised and 
enlarged edition.) 

By Francis Crawrorp Burkitt, M.A., 
Norissonian Professor of Divinity, Cam- 
bridge University. 

By Henry PrEsERVED SmitH, D.D., 
Professor of Biblical History, Amherst 
College, Mass. (Now ready.) 

By Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., 
Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

By the late A. B. Davipson, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew, New College, 
Edinburgh. (Now ready.) 

By Rev. James Morratt, B.D., Minister 
United Free Church, Dundonald, Scot- 
land. : 

By Caspar René Grecory, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in 
the University of Leipzig. 

By Wirtiam Sanpay, D,D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret, Professor of Divinity, and 
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 


She International Theofogicaf Zibrarp 
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 


By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D. 
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION, AMHERST COLLEGE 


Crown 8vo, 538 pages, $2.50 net 


This book gives a history of Old Testament times. 
This it does by a narrative based upon those Bibli- 
cal books which are historical in form. The nature 
of these books is carefully considered, their data are 
used according to historical methods, and the con- 
clusions of recent criticism are set forth. The other 
books of the Old Testament with the more impor- 
tant of the Apocrypha are given their proper place 
so far as they throw light on the development of 
the Old Testament people. 


“‘ Professor Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized history, 
laid all who care for the Old Testament under great obligations.” 
— The Independent. 


‘* The volume is characterized by extraordinary clearness of cone 
ception and representation, thorough scholarly ability, and charm 
of style.” — The Interior. 


‘Dr. Smith's volume is critical without being polemical, inter- 
esting though not imaginative, scholarly without pedantry, and radi- 
cal but not destructive. The author is himself an authority, and his 
volume is the best single presentation with which we are familiar of 
the modern view of Old Testament history.”— 7he Outlook. 


‘This volume is the result of thorough study, is free from the 
controversial spirit and from any evidence of desire to challenge older 
theories of the Bible, is written in straightforward, clear style, does 
not linger unduly in discussion of doubtful matters, is reverent and at 
ihe same time fearless. If one has accepted the main positions of the 
Higher Criticism, while he may still differ with Professor Smith's 
conclusions here and there, he will find himself in accord with the 
spirit of the author, whose scholarship and achievement he will 
gladly honor.”— The Congregationalist. 


‘* We have a clear, interesting, instructive account of the growth 
of Israel, embodying a series of careful judgments on the countless 
problems that face the man who tries to understand the life of that 
remarkable people. The ‘History’ takes its place worthily by the side 
of Driver's Introduction. The student of to-day is to be congratulated 
on having so valuable an addition made to his stock of tools.” 

—The Expository Times. 


The International Cheofogica? LiBrarp. 
The Theology of the Old Testament. 


BY THE LATE 


A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. 
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, New College, Edinburgh. 





EDITED FROM THE AUTHOR’S MANUSCRIPTS 
BY 


S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., F.E.I.S. 
Principal of the United Free Church College, Aberdeen, 


Crown 8vo. 568 pages. $2.50 net. 


“Tt is one of those monumental works whose publication the scholar hails 
with gratitude. Principal Salmond has edited Professor Davidson’s manu- 
scripts with care and fidelity. It would require much more space than we 
can give this volume in our crowded columns even to indicate the many points 
in which this, one of the greatest of Hebrew scholars, shows himself a lineal 
descendant and successor of the ancient prophets whom he loved so well; but 
it is enough to say that the work is fitted by its scholarship and its tone to 
become a standard in every theological seminary. Great pains have been 
taken with the Hebrew text, so frequently quoted, and its use is distinctly 
illuminative. His learning is never introduced to dazzle, but always to en- 
lighten the reader.” — The Interior. 


“ We hope every clergyman will not rest content till he has procured and 
studied this most admirable and useful book. Every really useful question 
relating to man— his nature, his fall, and his redemption, his present life of 
grace, his life after death, his future life — is treated of. We may add that the 
most conservatively inclined believer in the Old Testament will find nothing 
in this book to startle him, while, at the same time, the book is fully cogni- 
zant of the altered views regarding the ancient Scriptures. The tone is rever- 
ent throughout, and no one who reads attentively can fail to derive fresh light 
and benefit from the exposition here given.” —7he Canadian Churchman. 


“Dr. Davidson was so keen a student, and yet so reverent as to his Bible, 
that anything from his pen must be of profit. The book gives evidence that 
his eyes were wide open to all modern research, but yet he was not led astray 
by any of the vagaries of the schools. Through all the treatment of the 
theme he remains conservative, while seeking to know the truth.” — Examiner. 


“No one can fail to gain immense profit from its careful study. We rejoice 
that such a work is added to the store of helpful literature on the Old Testa- 
ment, and we express the hope that it may find wide reading among ministers 
and teachers of the Bible.””— 7%e Standard. 


“Tn its treatment of Old Testament theology, there is nothing to equal it 
in the English language, and nothing to surpass it in any language. While it 
is prepared for scholars it will prove an education in the Old Testament to the 
intelligent laymen or Sunday-school teachers who will give it a faithful read- 
ing. The style is so clear that it cannot help but prove interesting. We com- 
mend this book with a special prayer, believing that it will make the Old 
Testament a richer book; and make the foundation upon which the teachings 
of the New Testament stand more secure to every one who reads it.” 

— The Heidelberg Teacher. 





Te Internationa Theofogicaf Librarp. 


A HISTORY OF 


CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 


BY 
ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D: 
Washburn Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, 


Crown 8vo, 681 Pages, $2.50 Net. 


**The author’s work is ably done. . . . This volume is worthy of 
its place in the series.” — The Congregationalist. 


‘‘ Invaluable as a résumé of the latest critical work upon the great forma- 
tive period of the Christian Church.”— Zhe Christian World (London). 


«There can be no doubt that this is a remarkable work, both on account 
of the thoroughness of its ci“*Cism and the boldness of its views.” 


—The Scotsman. 


‘©The ability and learning of Professor McGiffert’s work on the Apos- 
tolic Age, and, whatever dissent there may be from its critical opinion, its 
manifest sincerity, candid scholars will not fail to appreciate.” 

—Dr. GEORGE P. FIsuER, of Yale University. 


‘* Pre-eminently a clergyman’s book; but there are many reasons why it 
should be in the library of every thoughtful Christian person. The style 
is vivid and at times picturesque. The results rather than the processes of 
learning are exhibited. It is full of local color, of striking narrative, and of 
keen, often brilliant, character analysis. It is an admirable book for the 
Sunday-school teacher.” —Boston Advertiser. 


‘« For a work of such wide learning and critical accuracy, and which deals 
with so many difficult and abstruse problems of Christian history, this is re- 
markably readable.” — The [ndependent. 


“Tt is certain that Professor McGiffert’s work has set the mark for 
future effort in the obscure fields of research into Christian origin.” 
—New York Tribune. 


‘Dr. McGiffert has produced an able, scholarly, suggestive, and con- 
structive work. He is in thorough and easy possession of his sources and 
materials, so that his positive construction is seldom interrupted by citations, 
the demolition of opposing views, or the irrelevant discussion of sebordinate 
questions.” — The Methodist Review. 


‘‘The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impressica of 
Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book, goes far to guarantes 
its permanent value and success.” — 7 he Expositar. 


) 





' Ge Internationa? Cheofogicar ZiGrary. 





THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


By GEORGE B, STEVENS, D.D. 


Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. 





| Crown S8vo, 638 pages, $2.50 net. 





” Tp style it is rarely clear, simple, and strong, adapted alike to the gene 


@ral reader and the theological student. The former class will find it read- 
able and interesting to an unusual degree, while the student will value its 
thorough scholarship and completeness of treatment. His work has a sim- 
plicity, beauty, and freshness that add greatly to its scholarly excellence and 
worth.” —Christian Advocate. 


‘* Professor Stevens is a profound student and interpreter of the Bible, as 
far as possible divested of any prepossessions concerning its message. In 
his study of it his object has been not to find texts that might seem to bol- 
ster up some system of theological speculation, -but to find out what the 
writers of the various books meant to say and teach.”—/V. Y. Tribune. 


‘*Tt is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial research 
and statement.” —7he Congregationalist. 


*«Professor Stevens has given us a very good book. A liberal conser- 
vative, he takes cautious and moderate positions in the field of New Testa- 
ment criticism, yet is admirably fair-minded. His method is patient and 
thorough. He states the opinions of those who differ from him with care 
and clearness. The proportion of quotation and reference is well adjusted 
and the reader is kept well informed concerning the course of opinion with- 
out being drawn away from the text of the author’s own thought. His 
judgments on difficult questions are always put with self-restraint and 
sobriety.”"— 7he Churchman. 


“Tt will certainly take its place, after careful reading, as a valuable 
svnopsis, neither bare nor over-elaborate, to which recourse will be had by 
the student or teacher who requires within moderate compass the gist of 
modern research,’”— Zhe Literary World, 


Zhe Internationa’ Theotogical LABrary. 
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. 


By ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN, D.D. 


Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Episcopal Theological Scher 
in Cambridge. 





Crown 8vo, 577 pages, $2.50 net. 





*« Professor Allen’s Christian Institutions may be regarded as tht mos : 
important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal Church’ 
of the United States has yet made to general theological thought. Ina few 
particulars it will not command the universal, or even the genera} assent of 
discriminating readers ; but it will receive, as it deserves, the respect and 
appreciation of those who rightly estimate the varied, learned, and independ- 
ent spirit of the author.”—7he American Journal of Theology. 


“« As to his method there can be no two opinions, nor as to the broad, 
critical, and appreciative character of his study. It is an immensely sug- 
gestive, stimulating, and encouraging piece of work. It shows that modern 
scholarship is not all at sea as to results, and it presents a worthy view of a 
great and noble subject, the greatest and noblest of all subjects.” —T7he Jn- 
dependent. 


‘*This will at once take its place among the most valuable volumes in the 
‘International Theological Library,’ constituting in itself a very complete 
epitome both of general church history and of the history of doctrines. 
Are A single quotation well illustrates the brilliant style and the pro- 
found thought of the book.” —Zke Bibliotheca Sacra. 


‘« The wealth of learning, the historical spirit, the philosophic grasp, the 
loyalty to the continuity of life, which everywhere characterize this thorough 
study of the organization, creeds, and cultus constituting Christian Institu- 
tion. . . . However the reader may differ with the conclusions of the 
author, few will question his painstaking scholarship, judicial temperament, 
and catholicity of Christian spirit.” — Zhe Advance. 


“It is an honor to American scholarship, and will be read by all who 
wish to be abreast of the age.” —The Lutheran Church Review. 


“ With all its defects and limitations, this is a most illuminating and sug- 
gestive bosk on a subject of abiding interest.”—Zhe Christian Intelli- 
gencer.” , 


“It is a treasury of expert knowledge, arranged in an orderly and lucid 
manner, and more than ordinarily readable. . . . It is controlled by the 
candid and critical spirit of the careful historian who, of course, has his 
conVictions and preferences, but who makes no claims in their behalf which 
the facts do not seem to warrant.”— The Congregationalist, 


“He writes in a charming style, and has collected a vast amount of im- 
portant material pertaining to his subject which can be found in .no.other 
work in so compact a form.”""—Lke Wew York Observer. 


She Internationa’ Theological Bibrarp, 





THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE. 
WORKING CHURCH 


By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., LL.D. 


Author of ‘‘ Applied Christianity,” ‘‘ Who Wrote the Bible?” ‘ Ruling 
: Ideas of the Presen. Age,” etc. 


Crown 8vo, 485 pages, $2.50 net. 


«« Dr. Gladden may be regarded as an expert and an authority on practi- 
-al theology. . . . Upon the whole we judge that it will be of great 
service to the ministry of all the Protestant churches.” — Zhe Jnterior. 


‘‘ Packed with wisdom and instruction and a profound piety. . . . 
It is pithy, pertinent, and judicious from cover to cover. . . . An ex- 
ceedingly comprehensive, sagacious, and suggestive study and application 
of its theme.” — Zhe Congregationalist. 


*« We have here, for the pastor, the most modern practical treatise yet 
published—sagacious, balanced, devout, inspiring.” —7%e Dial. 


«« His long experience, his eminent success, his rare literary ability, and 
his diligence as a student combine to make of this a model book for its pur- 
pose. . . + We know not where the subjects are more wisely discussed 
than here.” —TZhe Bibliotheca Sacra. 


‘This book should be the wade mecum of every working pastor. It 
abounds in wise counsels and suggestions, the result of large experience 
and observation. No sphere of church life or church work is left untreated.” 
—The (Canadian) Methodist Magazine and Review. 


«¢ A happier combination of author and subject, it will be acknowledged, 
can hardly be found. . . . It is comprehensive, practical, deeply 
Spiritual, and fertile in wise and suggestive thought upon ways and means 
of bringing the Gospel to bear on the lives of men.”—TZhe Christian Aa- 
vocate. 


‘«Dr. Gladden writes with pith and point, but with wise moderation, a 
genial tone and great good sense. . . . ‘The book is written in an excel- 
lent, business-like and vital English style, which carries the author’s point 
and purpose and has an attractive vitality of its own.” — The Independent. 


*« A comprehensive, inspiring, and helpful guide to a busy pastor, One 
nds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of the 
Spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many problems: 
that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister.” 

The Christian Intelligencer 


She Internationa? Theofogical Library. 





THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. 


By GEORGE B. STEVENS, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D. 


Dwight Professor of Systematic Theology in Yale University. 
Crown 8vo, 558 pages, $2.50 net (postage 22 cents). 


‘‘The book is a great work, whatever one’s own dogmatic opinions 
may be, or however one might wish to criticize some of the positions taken 
by Dr. Stevens. It shows mastery of the subject, breadth of view com- 
bined with the minutize of scholarship, that is admirable. It should have 
a wide reading, and it can do much for this transitional time of ours, when 
nothing is more needed than the reinterpretation of the old formulas in 
the life of to-day."— The Examiner. 


“Professor Stevens has performed a task of great importance, certain 
to exert wide and helpful influence in settling the minds of men. He has 
treated the subject historically and has given to Christ the first place in 
interpreting his own mission."—Congregationalist and Christian World, 


‘‘The eminence of the author no less than the thoroughly scholarly 
character of his discussion insures to his book a place in every complete 
theological library.” —Brooklyn Daily Eagle. 


““'This is a book of marked value. There is evidence of good thinking 
from beginning to end. The author has a clear and wholesome way of 
looking for the truth. He understands the uses of the historical method, 
but this does not blind him to the discernment of some truths by straight 
and immediate perception or intuition. Familiar enough with what the 
modern critics and theorizers have to say, he does not lose his fine poise of 
| Spiritual judgment either in face of the old or the new. He is in no sense 
a controversialist. He is simply after the truth, and the whole truth.” 

—The Standard (Chicago). 


‘The subject is treated historically and exegetically, the problems 
that present themselves being approached inductively, the theories of 
others presented with reasonable fulness, and the discussion kept through- 
out on an objective plane. . . . The book deserves careful study, as 
a whole, and is suggestive of the interest taken in questions of soteriology 
to-day.”"— The Churchman. 


The Internationa? Theofogicaf Library. 





Apologetics; 
Or, Christianity Defensively Stated. 


By the late ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D., 


Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, 
Glasgow ; Author of ‘‘ The Training of the Twelve,’’ ‘‘ The Humilia- 
tion of Christ,’’ ‘‘ The Kingdom of God,”’ etc. 


eo 


Crown 8vo, 528 pages, $2.50 net. 


Professor Bruce’s work is not an abstract treatise on apologetics, 
but an apologetic presentation of the Christian faith, with reference 
to whatever in our intellectual environment makes faith difficult at 
the present time. 

It addresses itself to men whose sympathies are with Christianity, 
and discusses the topics of pressing concern—the burning questions 
of the hour. It is offered as an aid to faith rather than a buttress of 
received belief and an armory of weapons for the orthodox believer. 


“The book throughout exhibits the methods and the results of - 
conscientious, independent, expert and devout Biblical scholarship, 
and it is of permanent value.” — The Congregationalist. 


‘«The practical value of this book entitles it toa place in the 
first rank.” — The /ndependent. 


“A patient and scholarly presentation of Christianity under 
aspects best fitted to commend it to ‘ingenuous and truth-loving 
minds.’ ”’— The Nation. 


««The book is well-nigh indispensable to those who propose to 
keep abreast of the times.” — Western Christian Advocate. 


‘Professor Bruce does not consciously evade any difficulty, 
and he constantly aims to be completely fair-minded. For this 
reason he wins from the start the strong confidence of the reader. ”— 
Advance. 


“Its admirable spirit, no less than the strength of its arguments, 
will go far to remove many of the prejudices or doubts of those who 
are’ outside of Christianity, but who are, nevertheless, not infidels.”— 
New York Tribune. 


‘*In a word, he tells precisely what all intelligent persons wish te 
know, and tells it in aclear, fresh and convincing manner. Scarcely 
anyone has so successfully rendered the service of showing what 
the result of the higher criticism is for the proper understanding of 
the history and religion of Israel.”— Andover Review. 


“«We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more* 
stimulating to faith. . . . Without commenting further, we repeat 
that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and 
sharpest defence of Christianity that has ever been written. Ne 
theological library should he without it.” — son's Herald. 


She Internationa Cheofoatcaf LiGrarp, 
Christian Ethics, 





By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., New Haven. 


Crown 8vo, 508 pages, $2.50 net. 





*« As this book is the latest, soit is the fullest and most acrractive 
treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and ex- 
haustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in 
the topic it handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the 
task: of the moral understanding and interpretation of human life.” 

— The Living Church. 


“This book of Dr. Newman Smyth is of extraordinary interest and 
value: It is an honor to American scholarship and American Chris- 
tian thinking. It is a work which has been wrought out with re- 
markable grasp of conception, and power of just analysis, fullness of 
information, richness of thought, and affluence of apt and luminous 
illustration. Its style is singularly clear, simple, facile, and strong. 
Too much gratification can hardly be expressed at the way the author 
lifts the whole subject of ethics up out of the slough of mere natural- 
ism into its own place, where it is seen to be illumined by the Chris- 
tian revelation and vision.” — Zhe Advance. 


«The subjects treated cover the whole field of moral and spiritual re. 
lations, theoretical and practical, natural and revealed, individual and social, 
civil and ecclesiastical. To enthrone the personal Christ as the true content 
of the ethical ideal, to show how this ideal is realized in Christian conscious: 
ress and how applied in the varied departments of practical life—these are 
the main objects of the book and no objects could be loftier.”” 

— The Congregationalist. 


‘©The author has written with competent knowledge, with great spiritual 
insight, and in a tone of devoutness and reverence worthy of his theme.” 
—The London Independent. 


‘¢It is methodical, comprehensive, and readable; few sub‘livisions, 
direct or indirect, are omitted in the treatment of the broad theme, and 
though it aims to be an exhaustive treatise, and not a popular handbook, it 
may be perused at random with a good deal of suggestiveness and profit.” ! 

—The Sunday School Times. 


‘«Tt reflects great credit on the author, presenting an exemplery temper 
and manner throughout, being a model of clearness in thought and term, 
and containing passages of exquisite finish.”—Hartford Seminary Recorcs 


“* We commend this book to all reading, intelligent men, an? especi Uv 
@o ministers, who will find in ** ~-ny fresh suggestions.” 
—Proressor A. EB Brucs 


The International Theofogical LZikrarp. 





A HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. 


I. THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY. 


By THOMAS M. LINDSAY, M.A., D.D. 
Principal, The United Free Church College, Glasgow 





Crown 8vo, 544 pages, $2.50 net (postage 21 cents). 


This volume on the Reformation in Germany is a very important work. 
The author is a specialist on this subject, having devoted many years to 
research in the original documents of the period. 


The work is especially valuable for its fresh and rich exhibit of the 
social and political environment of the Reformation. The story of Luther 
is vividly and graphically told, often in the very language and style of eye- 
witnesses. The volume concludes with a careful statement of the religious 


principles inspiring the Reformation. 


The author is a genuine historian. He writes as a scholar who has 
mastered his material and his theme. He is free from the prejudices and 
exaggerations so common with most Protestant writers on the subject, and 
may be relied on for his factsand statements. Where one differs from him, 
it must be said that the author gives good reasons for his conclusions and 
there is room for honest difference of opinion. The author has in prepara- 
tion a volume on the Reformation beyond Germany, which will complete 
the History of the Reformation. 













DATE DUE 


& 
APR ~ ae 


oe 
ae | — 












MAB 20°75 
MAR 24 ~ 





bg 


ed 
m4 ; 
aS Ws 


hw 





: DEMCO 38-297 = 


220.7 I61A v.7 11th ed, 
472849 





luke University Libraries 


VOT 








